“DAVID OUT-NEGOTIATION GOLIATH:APOTEX AND BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB”
This case is a real world scenario about the survival of two giants of the pharmaceutical industry at stake. The problem is non- professional negations process and the focusing on Win-Win which at end resulted in acting unethically and this caused a disagreement through which Bristol Mayers and Apotex perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns.
Justification for Problem Definition
The problem happened due to the lake of clear negations strategy and good planning which should be strongly presented in such negotiations between the business giants. The problem is also happened because one of the decision maker has behaved in an un-ethical manner to achieve his goal.
Strategy is embedded in any organizations planning process and without strategy the organization will become a candidate for acquisitions or would become extinct. It’s usually a mistake to approach negotiation as a casual encounter without much forethought. Good planning and strategy can provide a negotiator with the direction needed to do effective problem solving at the negotiation table.
2 – Lawyers presence in such agreements or negotiations is very important as the lawyers can essentially help in saving a lot of money and effort. lawyer alerts the client of all potential risks. He or she will permit the client to review its willingness to assume each particular risk. We found in this case that when the lawyers didn't present in the final negotiations process , there was good chance for deception which resulted in the big loss for Bristold Myers .
3 - While decision makers in businesses have to achieve their goals and win in any agreement, they also have ethical responsibilities. Everyone, from the bottom to the top of the organizational chart, must take care to meet these responsibilities. So, the management in any organizations has to highlight the importance of ethics which sure can build trust and gain long term benefits. Holding regular ethics courses for all members within the organizations can help to assure that. For example , in this case Sherman did not behaved ethically. Privately , Sherman was betting that FTC would not approve the non-compete agreement the two parties negotiating, and his goal in negotiation was to extract an agreement from Bristol-Myers. Sherman misrepresentation of facts was unethical. He used deception to produce advantages.
Conclusion and Recommendations:
In conclusion , I want to emphasize that ethical business are very essential for long-term organizational survival and behaving in an ethical manner can create positive business results.