• essayintl.com >
  • Case Study >
  • Connecticut Valley School - Positions of All Parties and Approach to Negotiation, Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement and Negotiating Power

Essays on Connecticut Valley School - Positions of All Parties and Approach to Negotiation, Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement and Negotiating Power Case Study

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper “ Connecticut Valley School - Positions of All Parties and Approach to Negotiation, Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement and Negotiating Power” is an exciting version of a case study on the management. A negotiation  is a widespread approach to resolving disputes. Negotiation can be defined as a backward and forward communication between parties to reach a common balance. Negotiation can involve two parties or more. Negotiation involving more than two parties is referred to as multiparty negotiation (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003) and is the focus of this paper.

This paper reviews the general negotiation process relating to a disagreement between different parties of Connecticut Valley School (CVS) regarding the projects to be undertaken. The disagreement involved three parties; the school headmaster, the faculty budget committee and the board of trustees. However, through successful negotiation, they reached a common agreement. Positions and Interests of All Parties and Approach to NegotiationThere are two unique types of negotiation; position-based negotiation and interest-based negotiation. Position-based negotiation is where parties state their approach to resolving the causal problem or they put forward a particular solution. Usually, parties choose a position(s) that will supposedly go well with their specific interest or meets up their wishes.

Interest-based negotiation is where parties clearly state their wishes, provisions or achievements they expect from the agreement before they accept it. In negotiation, it is important that each party’ s "interests" and "positions" are well defined (Fisher & Ury, 2011). However, interest-based negotiation is the most preferred type of negotiation. This is because even though the parties may have clashing positions, their interests may have some common elements on which they can build to reach a mutually satisfying agreement. Out of the above types of negotiation, there arise two distinct approaches to negotiation: (1) Distributive negotiation; and (2) Integrative/Principled negotiation.

Distributive negotiation or win-lose bargaining is where parties adopt rigid positions. It arises from position-based negotiation. Integrative/Principled negotiation or win-win bargaining is centered on the benefits accruable from the negotiated issue. It focuses on the parties' interests. Parties integrate their interests so as to create value and pull off the highest possible benefits for each party (Lewicki et al. , 2003). In the CVS case, parties chose their positions based on the projects to be undertaken.

However, for all the three parties their interests were to rank the projects according to their costs and intended benefits. Hence, parties chose to negotiate based on the costs and benefits of the projects, which were the interest for each one party, rather than the positions. In doing this they adopted an integrated approach to negotiation. Through pulling together the interests, the parties agreed on projects that each party would benefit or lay a claim on. This resulted in a win-win situation due to value creation from where each party felt that they would have a share of the benefits from the projects they agreed to undertake. Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) and Negotiating PowerIn negotiation, it is important that each party consider several alternatives so as to avoid making a blind deal.

There are four key alternatives to negotiation. Among the alternatives, most parties prefer the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). This is the alternative that will produce the most favorable outcome for either party. This alternative is chosen if any of the party’ s alternative to the negotiation is better than the agreement the parties settle on out of the negotiation.

On the other hand, if the agreement the parties settle on out of the negotiation is better than any of the parties’ alternatives, the agreement will be their new BATNA (Fisher & Ury, 2011).

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us