Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Credible Warning or False Alarm? What the US Knew on September 10th, 2001 case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Kirsten Lundberg, Ernest May. The Credible Warning or False Alarm? What the US Knew on September 10th, 2001 (referred as “Qaeda Fbi” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Strategy & Execution. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, Leadership, Project management, Risk management, Security & privacy, Strategic planning.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study Credible Warning or False Alarm? What the US Knew on September 10th, 2001 ” provides a comprehensive framework to analyse all issues at hand and reach a unambiguous negotiated agreement. At Oak Spring University, we provide comprehensive negotiation strategies that have proven their worth both in the academic sphere and corporate world.
What’s my BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) – my walkaway option if the deal fails?
What are my most important interests, in ranked order?
What is the other side’s BATNA, and what are his interests?
Well before the fateful morning of September 11, 2001, the threat posed to Americans and the United States by Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda ("The Base") network of terrorists was well documented and closely monitored. Two US agencies-the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-each maintained units devoted to bin Laden. In 1998 and 2000, al Qaeda attacks on US targets had precipitated intensive investigations which yielded a wealth of knowledge about the terrorist operation. Those attacks also promoted increased cooperation between the FBI and CIA, which regularly exchanged personnel and information. Moreover, throughout the summer of 2001, there had been a steady drumbeat of warnings about terrorist attacks, which the US government treated with utmost seriousness. American travelers abroad, US embassies, businesses and military installations were all in a heightened state of alert. The Federal Aviation Authority issued general warnings to airlines. An FBI office reported on suspicious Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons in Phoenix; an aviation student in Minnesota was arrested. The CIA notified the FBI that two suspected al Qaeda members were in the US. This case brings together accounts of what U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies knew about al Qaeda before September 11, 2001 and raises the question of why that knowledge-tips, satellite pictures, intercepted communications, defector reports, courtroom testimony-did not thwart the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. It frames, in particular, the challenges of synthesizing intelligence-the difficulties involved in assembling seemingly random incidents into a coherent picture and distinguishing between credible warnings and probable false alarms. It can be used as a vehicle for discussion about intelligence-gathering per se, as well as government inter-agency and inter-departmental coordination. HKS Case Number 1662.0
By interests, we do not mean the preconceived demands or positions that you or the other party may have, but rather the underlying needs, aims, fears, and concerns that shape what you want. Negotiation is more than getting what you want. It is not winning at all cost. Number of times Win-Win is better option that outright winning or getting what you want.
Options are the solutions you generate that could meet your and your counterpart’s interests . Often people come to negotiations with very fixed ideas and things they want to achieve. This strategy leaves unexplored options which might be even better than the one that one party wanted to achieve. So always try to provide as many options as possible during the negotiation process. The best outcome should be out of many options rather than few options.
When soft bargainers meet hard bargainers there is always the danger of soft bargainers ceding more than what is necessary. To avoid this scenario you should always focus on legitimate standards or expectations. Standards are often external and objective measures to assess the fairness such as rules and regulations, financial values & resources , market prices etc. If the negotiated agreement is going beyond the industry norms or established standards of fairness then it is prudent to get out of the negotiation.
Every negotiators going into the negotiations should always work out the “what if” scenario. The negotiating parties in the “Credible Warning or False Alarm? What the US Knew on September 10th, 2001” has three to four plausible scenarios. The negotiating protagonist needs to have clear idea of – what will happen if the negotiations fail. To put it in the negotiating literature – BATNA - Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. If the negotiated agreement is not better than BATNA then there is no point in accepting the negotiated solution.
One of the biggest problems in implementing the negotiated agreements in corporate world is – the ambiguity in the negotiated agreement. Sometimes the negotiated agreements are not realistic or various parties interpret the outcomes based on their understanding of the situation. It is critical to do negotiations as water tight as possible so that there is less scope for ambiguity.
Many negotiators make the mistake of focusing only on the substance of the negotiation (interests, options, standards, and so on). How you communicate about that substance, however, can make all the difference. The language you use and the way that you build understanding, jointly solve problems, and together determine the process of the negotiation with your counterpart make your negotiation more efficient, yield clear agreements that each party understands, and help you build better relationships.
Another critical factor in the success of your negotiation is how you manage your relationship with your counterpart. According to “Kirsten Lundberg, Ernest May”, the protagonist may want to establish a new connection or repair a damaged one; in any case, you want to build a strong working relationship built on mutual respect, well-established trust, and a side-by-side problem- solving approach.
According to
Harvard Business Review
, there are three types of negotiators – Hard Bargainers, Soft Bargainers, and Principled Bargainers.
Hard Bargainers – These people see negotiations as an activity that they need to win. They are less focused less on the real objectives of the negotiations but more on winning. In the “Credible Warning or False Alarm? What the US Knew on September 10th, 2001 ”, do you think a hard bargaining strategy will deliver desired results? Hard bargainers are easy to negotiate with as they often have a very
predictable strategy
Soft Bargainers – These people are focused on relationship rather than hard outcomes of the negotiations. It doesn’t mean they are pushovers. These negotiators often scribe to long term relationship rather than immediate bargain.
Principled Bargainers – As explained in the seven elemental tools of negotiations above, these negotiators are more concern about the standards and norms of fairness. They often have inclusive approach to negotiations and like to work on numerous solutions that can improve the BATNA of both parties.
Open lines of communication between parties in the case study “Credible Warning or False Alarm? What the US Knew on September 10th, 2001” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Kirsten Lundberg, Ernest May (2018), "Credible Warning or False Alarm? What the US Knew on September 10th, 2001 Harvard Business Review Case Study. Published by HBR Publications.
Feel free to connect with us if you need business research.
You can download Excel Template of Case Study Solution & Analysis of Credible Warning or False Alarm? What the US Knew on September 10th, 2001
Technology , Software & Programming
Technology , Software & Programming
Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs
Financial , Misc. Financial Services
Technology , Communications Equipment
Capital Goods , Misc. Capital Goods
Basic Materials , Misc. Fabricated Products
Capital Goods , Misc. Capital Goods
Technology , Electronic Instr. & Controls
Services , Broadcasting & Cable TV
Healthcare , Medical Equipment & Supplies
Basic Materials , Gold & Silver
