Negotiation Review

Out-of-class Negotiation: Preparation, Review and Feedback

A. Negotiation Preparation (graded) Remember to also submit your preparation for this negotiation using the nego sheet

B. Negotiation Outcome (not graded – but if you don’t describe the outcome your grade will be affected) Please describe succinctly the outcome of your negotiation.
(DO NOT use student names in this box, as comments here will be shared with the whole class)

1. Partner with other willing organizations.

2. Hire consultants only when required.

3. Increment of $ 200K over current budget and independently raise funds for the remaining shortage.

4. Milo to seek the president’s approval for extra budgetary provisions. (seek Mr Costas support if needed).

WORD LIMIT: maximum 1000 words for the TOTAL of questions 1 to 4 below.

Please include here your word count: (1) 122 + (2) 202 + (3) 138 + (4) 169 = TOTAL __631___

Hint: If your total is above 1000 words, you should summarize to respect the limit. If your total is below 700 words perhaps your reflection can be a bit deeper?

C. Review of own performance (graded)

1. What did YOU do that you believe worked well and you might want to repeat next time? Please be specific, deep and prescriptive, making concrete recommendations and analyzing risks and rewards.

(If negotiating in a team, please discuss and provide individual feedback to each member)

1. Strong Opening – Established common ground by talking about the impact Drug Policy Initiative could make. Conveyed my vulnerability by saying that I seek his support and advice on the project. This set a friendly tone to start of the conversation. This not only disarmed a possible defensive start  but also set the positive tone for the discussion where Milo patiently listened to my views.

1. Mutual Understanding : There was a mutual understanding between both of us where there was an equal responsibility for us to prove our stand to the board members. We were trying to push each other to come up with what we believed was the best solution available for the international success of the Drug Policy initiative.

1. What did YOU do that you would like to do differently next time? Please be specific, deep and prescriptive, making concrete recommendations and analyzing risks and rewards.

 (If negotiating in a team, please discuss and provide individual feedback to each member)

1. Over enthusiastic: Was constantly pushing my agenda of increasing the budget rather than working around the factors and alternatives that could have improved the outcome of the project. Though the conversation started at generating value for both the parties, it drifted to a “I need to win” kind of scenario where I was talking and pleading for the requested budget hike. “ I could have patiently focused at first generating more alternatives rather  than jumping at solution . I had focused only on raising external budgets and partnering with other external organizations rather than exploring the optional internal to the organization.

1. Being Specific with Details : Made generalist arguments like “hire subject matter experts and consultants”. I could have been more detailed in the explaining the rational for $450,000 “Policy Support Panel” as against the prevailing market costs involved in hiring these consultants. Further explanation could have been given as to what specific quality outcomes we were expecting from the project.  Not being specific didn’t give Milo a chance to eliminate certain cost citing that it was unnecessary to hire a particular consultant. On the flipside not giving a justification for the figures made it look like a bloated figure.

D. Feedback to counterparty(ies) (graded)
(Note: this feedback affects your grade but not your counterparty’s)

1. What did THEY do that worked well and you would recommend they repeat next time? Please be specific, deep and prescriptive, making concrete recommendations and analyzing risks and rewards.
   (Please provide individual feedback to your counterparty(ies)) 

1. Patient Listener : During the discussion Milo was patient at understanding and relating to the requirements of the project and was patiently listening to what I was trying to convey and was prepared with the right questions which sent a signal of assurance that he was serious about making this project a success.