IntroductionThis essay sets out to assess the psychological events as well as dynamics that are encompassed in the takeover negotiations within the various groups in the class based on the fact that each of the group had a role to play. This will be done by the application of theories and research that have been covered in the course. The essay will in particular look at the psychology behind the negotiation and preparation with the other parties and in seeking to persuade and shift attitudes it will therefore look at not only what was actually done but also on what should have been done instead.
Our group played the role as the staff members of Cadbury and thus our negotiations were more inclined to the potential benefits of Cadbury as opposed to Kraft. DiscussionNegotiation is commonly termed as the communication that takes place between individuals who basically meet with the intention of forming a cooperative agreement. Each of the involved groups tend to have a number of conflicting interests and each of them must be expected to shift their positions or change there preferred threshold in the aim of reaching a mutually favorable agreement (Aktas, De Bodt and Roll 550).
Failure in negotiations in mostly linked to various issues, but the most common one is that the groups in the negations process tend to emotionally involved in the negation and they tend to take a certain position and thus they tend to treat the other party as their enemy. It is commonly believed that good negotiators tend to seek mutually beneficial benefits for both of the parties and thus they always avoid making unyielding positions.
As a group we were able to divorce ourselves emotionally from the negotiation process and thus we focused more on what both groups that is Kraft and Cadbury can be able to accomplish together. As a group we understood that preparation before negotiation is an important aspect that members of the groups need to consider (Aktas, De Bodt and Roll 252). The group members also understood that they needed to have an adequate amount of time before we met so as to think of the position we held, our needs as well as our wants.
Irrespective of the fact that good preparation did not ensure success, it was a key aspect that we considered. As a group we clearly depicted aspect in that both groups were able to establish their own value propositions. In most instances, one of the parties involved in the negotiations at times do not establish the real and factual values of their services and thus they tend to sell on price and are left with no adequate space to sell their concessions and thus they tend to cave on price (Aktas, De Bodt and Roll 262). Most negotiators in the modern day tend to take the assumption that the other group acknowledges and understands the true and real value of their services.
The very notion that a benefit or a certain feature of the products that a group manufactures is beneficial to them does not mean that the feature will be beneficial to the other party. Thus both groups focused on the total value of the relationship that they were creating and not just focusing on the acquisition costs of their products as well as the possible degree of attempting to establish the real values for every aspect.
Both groups should also understand that offering concession too readily seems not to be good idea in negotiations (Aktas, De Bodt and Roll 262). Thus in reality, giving something and getting nothing in return seems to be a vital error that most organizations make since it forms a poor guide and it proves to be difficult to reverse it. Thus our group ensured that any concession that they offered no matter how seemingly invaluable a certain concession is invaluable to them it must be fought for in a hard manner.
As the Cadbury group, we mentally maintained the ledger of concessions to ensure that there was a sense of fairness in from both sides. This ensured that the negotiation process run smoothly since every group did not accuse the other one of been unfair.