1) You are the Director in charge of corporate negotiations for Lockheed-Martin. You are in
potential merger discussions with arch-rival General Dynamics. Pending FTC approval of this merger, discuss TWO key negotiation fundamentals that you will employ and explain why these fundamentals are essential for this pending merger discussion (from the section 1 reading). Be specific as to your justification.
A negotiation is a dialogue between two or more party’s geared towards reaching a mutual agreement.
During negotiations each party should be desperately trying to achieve an advantage for his or hers organization, they should also be ready and willing to compromise. Negotiations ...view middle of the document...
(Lewicki, Saunders, and Barry, 2010).
Lewicki, Saunders, and Barry state that there are five basic types of negotiating strategies, and that the correct strategy or combination of strategies should be driven by the importance of the two aforementioned elements.
When considering relationship concerns, I would be concerned whether or not there is already an existing relationship, if so, is it good or bad. I would be concerned with whether there is a need or desire to continue or develop a relationship post negotiation, and also the level of commitment required if I should choose to maintain a good relationship.
For example, as the director of negotiations for Lockheed -Martin, negotiating a potential merger, I should make myself completely aware of the history of the relationship between my organization and General Dynamics, and I should be extremely concerned about improving or repairing that relationship if necessary, and thus be concerned about the level of commitment that will be required to accomplish that, since they have been deemed our arch-rivals in the past.
The second key element that should cause concern when selecting a negotiating strategy is the importance of the outcome of the negotiation. I would have to ask myself. How important is it to my organization, to attain a good outcome, or does the outcome really matter?
As the director of negotiations I would have all types of study’s and analysis conducted, about General Dynamics, their organizations as well as the way they conduct business within their organization. That information, coupled with guidance I received from my CEO would play a large part in the strategy selection process.
Lewicki, Saunders, and Barry lists five possible strategies that could be used when the relationship and outcome, drive your decision.
1) Avoiding (lose-lose)
2) Accommodating (lose to win)
3) Competitive (win-lose)
4) Collaborating (win-win)
5) Compromising (split the difference)
As this negotiation could result in the merger of two organizations, which would mean the integration of employees, business practices and procedures and many other areas; I would select a combination of “collaborative” and “compromising” methods of strategy. I believe this combination, if conducted properly, with buy in from both parties, could provide an agreement where both the relationship and the outcome is treated with priority, while allowing the possibility of compromise in areas where we experience difficulty with collaboration, thus creating a “win-win” outcome.
Question 1, part 2, - Key fundamental #2: Implementing a collaborative strategy.
As the director of negotiations and having selected to go with a combination of collaboration and compromise as my negotiation strategy, knowing how to implement a collaborative strategy would be an essential fundamental for me.
Mergers between two corporations are difficult to maintain, and like a...