Let's Shake On It

  Maddie and I completed the negotiation over text.  I appreciated that it gave me more time to type up a response and gather my thoughts. I was also more comfortable hard balling a little bit more because being behind a phone screen feels safer.  However, using this method takes away the ability to form a better relationship with your negotiation partner by eliminating the opportunity to interact with them in person. I could see how this would be a more challenging means of communication for partners who wanted to build stronger relationships. I know for myself, diminished privacy within our negotiation was a factor. I involved my fiance as Maddie and I were negotiating and explained the scenario to him. He was able to help me respond within Maddie knowing that I was sharing our negotiation which she may have intended to be solely between her and I. At no point, however, was there any contention between us. Maddie and I knew each other before the negotiation and were som...

Review the assigned readings for last week, reading 5.1, "Culture and Negotiation," and reading 5.3, "American Strengths and Weaknesses." In "Culture and Negotiation," Brett discusses the two cultural dimensions explained in class-- individualism versus collectivism  and  hierarchy versus egalitarianism . (1) Tell me, in your own words, what these cultural dimensions are.       Individualism refers to the importance a culture places on personal freedom, choice, and pursuing one's own interest or path. Individual cultures places more importance on autonomy and individual accomplishments. The United States and most western European cultures tend to be more individualistic. On the other hand, collectivist cultures value interdependency and community ties. These cultures place heavy importance on familial, community and obligations.  Eastern and South American countries tend to be more collectivist. Hierarchical societies emphasizes social status and tends...

    During the Newton Schools negotiation, I was a part of the teachers association along with three others in my group. The dynamic was a little different than most groups, because we only had one representative from the school board.  As a part of the larger teachers association, we possessed more power than the individual from the school board. Though we had more power, we didn't abuse it. Rather, our negotiation could best be described as collaborative. Both teams wanted to maintain positive relationships with each other since the roles were groups that worked closely alongside each other. Because of this, we were open to understanding each others positions and interests. Though I was absent for the intrateam negotiation, I was told it went smoothly because the goals from the group within the teachers association were aligned. Interteam still went smoothly, but there was more (friendly) bartering back and forth for us to reach an agreement.  Despite being willing...

When planning for our Connecticut Valley negotiation, we rehearsed or "war gamed" with the kinds of rebuttals we would receive for our top choices on how we wanted to spend the budget. As far as strategy, we established that I would be the voice for the trust and that my team mates would essentially supervise.  Before we started our negotiation we established our shared goals which fortunately had already been aligned before we started.  Our intra-team communication was nothing cryptic.  If my team mates had thoughts or suggestions that they felt were pertinent to the negotiation, they would request a caucus to discuss their thoughts with me on how to move forward.       When it came time to negotiate with the other three boards, we had an unexpectedly simple time agreeing on what we wanted to invest our funds in. None of us met any significant resistance compared to what we overheard from the other groups. Each of the board representatives were comfor...