Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Lessons from Pharmaceutical Product Litigation: Merck and the Vioxx Withdrawal, Cona & McDarby vs. Merck, Video Supplement case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Margaret L. Eaton. The Lessons from Pharmaceutical Product Litigation: Merck and the Vioxx Withdrawal, Cona & McDarby vs. Merck, Video Supplement (referred as “Merck Merck's” 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, Ethics, Health, Product development, Regulation.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study Lessons from Pharmaceutical Product Litigation: Merck and the Vioxx Withdrawal, Cona & McDarby vs. Merck, Video Supplement ” 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?
In 2004, pharmaceutical powerhouse Merck acknowledged potentially harmful side effects and withdrew one of its best selling drugs, Vioxx, an arthritis and pain relief drug, from the market. Withdrawing an FDA approved drug from the U.S. market due to newly-discovered side effects was not so uncommon. What was unusual, however, was that Merck's withdrawal was a voluntary decision by the company after Vioxx had been taken by an estimated 80 million patients during four plus years on the market. While Merck's decision was initially hailed as an example of Merck's well known dedication to ethical business practices, some in the medical community instead accused Merck of intentionally keeping Vioxx on the market even though it was too dangerous. Critics claimed that Merck had put profits ahead of patients and Merck soon faced close to 30,000 product liability lawsuits. This case package consists of a written case, supporting written materials, and an accompanying case video which takes place in the courtroom of a trial against Merck. Tom Cona and John McDarby sued Merck after experiencing heart attacks that they attributed to Vioxx. Using trial footage supplied by Courtroom View Network, this case explores the kinds of wrongful conduct alleged and how companies like Merck defend themselves against such claims. The witnesses testifying in this trial include the patients and their families who are suing, Merck's CEO and senior management, the physicians who prescribed the drug, and those who were called to give expert testimony in support of and against Merck's drug development, regulatory, and marketing activities.Disk 1: Introduction to the trial & Opening statements Disk 2: Testimony in Plaintiffs' Case Disk 3: Testimony in Merck's Defense Disk 4: Closing Statements, Judge Instructions, Verdicts Disk 5: Review copy of case study, supplementary materials and slides from video presentation This material is designed to be used in a one-day seminar or equivalent, with students having read the written case study and watched Disk 1 prior to class. This case is particularly well suited for business, medical, and law students. The written materials and video are sold as a package and are designed to be used together. Academic faculty may request a teaching note. Please contact cases_requests@gsb.stanford.edu for permissions to use the written case each time it is taught.
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, clearly understanding the arbitrage . 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 “Lessons from Pharmaceutical Product Litigation: Merck and the Vioxx Withdrawal, Cona & McDarby vs. Merck, Video Supplement” 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 (Negotiations options), 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 and other people doing the mediation. According to “Margaret L. Eaton”, 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 “Lessons from Pharmaceutical Product Litigation: Merck and the Vioxx Withdrawal, Cona & McDarby vs. Merck, Video Supplement ”, 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 “Lessons from Pharmaceutical Product Litigation: Merck and the Vioxx Withdrawal, Cona & McDarby vs. Merck, Video Supplement” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Margaret L. Eaton (2018), "Lessons from Pharmaceutical Product Litigation: Merck and the Vioxx Withdrawal, Cona & McDarby vs. Merck, Video Supplement 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 Lessons from Pharmaceutical Product Litigation: Merck and the Vioxx Withdrawal, Cona & McDarby vs. Merck, Video Supplement
Technology , Semiconductors
Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs
Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs
Services , Retail (Grocery)
Utilities , Electric Utilities
Financial , Misc. Financial Services
Services , Retail (Specialty)
Services , Real Estate Operations
Financial , Regional Banks
Services , Retail (Specialty)
Healthcare , Medical Equipment & Supplies
Financial , Investment Services