×




Governance Reform at Research in Motion (RIM) Ltd. Negotiation Strategy / MBA Resources

Introduction to Negotiation Strategy

Negotiation Strategy solution for Governance Reform at Research in Motion (RIM) Ltd. case study


At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Governance Reform at Research in Motion (RIM) Ltd. case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Yee-Ching Lilian Chan, Horng-Tzu Hao. The Governance Reform at Research in Motion (RIM) Ltd. (referred as “Nei Rim” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Finance & Accounting. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, .

Negotiation strategy solution for case study Governance Reform at Research in Motion (RIM) Ltd. ” 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.


BATNA in Negotiation Strategy


Three questions every negotiator should ask before entering into a negotiation process-

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?



12 Hrs

$59.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

24 Hrs

$49.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

48 Hrs

$39.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now




Case Description of Governance Reform at Research in Motion (RIM) Ltd. Case Study


The case looks at the board structure of Research in Motion Limited (RIM) since the probe of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) and Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) into the company's stock option granting practices in late 2006. Institutional investors, more specifically Northwest & Ethical Investments LP (NEI), were concerned about RIM's leadership and board structure in 2011 not because of non-compliance with regulations or accounting errors, but because of the drastic fall of the company's share price (see TN-Exhibit 1). Indeed, 2011 was a challenging year for RIM (see TN-Exhibit 2 for a list of events affecting RIM in 2011) as its launch of its tablet PlayBook was not as successful as compared to Apple's iPad 2. There was also increasing competition from Apple's iPhone 4S and other smartphones using the Android platform. In addition, a number of executives left the company in summer and early fall. There was also a service disruption, due to a failure of core switch in RIM's infrastructure, which interrupted email messages and internet services for millions of BlackBerry users over five continents in October 2011. Apart from these serious strategic and operational issues, institutional investors, more specifically NEI, questioned the dominance of executives on RIM's Board and asked for a split of the Chair and Co-CEO roles. In order to avert a showdown with shareholders at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) on July 12, 2011, RIM made an agreement with NEI to establish "a committee of independent directors to study its board structure, the merits of a lead director versus a chair, and the 'business necessity' for the company's co-CEOs to hold 'significant' board-level titles". This sets the theme of the case, i.e., assess RIM's board structure in 2011 and recommend resolutions to be included in the report due on January 31, 2012 to address the governance issues raised by NEI.


Case Authors : Yee-Ching Lilian Chan, Horng-Tzu Hao

Topic : Finance & Accounting

Related Areas :




Seven Elemental Tools of Negotiation that can be used in Governance Reform at Research in Motion (RIM) Ltd. solution


1. Satisfies everyone’s core interests (yours and theirs)


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.





2. Is the best of many options

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.


3. Meets legitimate, fair standards

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.


4. Is better than your alternatives or BATNA

Every negotiators going into the negotiations should always work out the “what if” scenario. The negotiating parties in the “Governance Reform at Research in Motion (RIM) Ltd.” 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.


5. Is comprised of clear, realistic commitments

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.


6. Is the result of effective communication?

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.


7. Managing relationship with counterparty

Another critical factor in the success of your negotiation is how you manage your relationship with your counterpart. According to “Yee-Ching Lilian Chan, Horng-Tzu Hao”, 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.




Different types of negotiators – what is your style of negotiation

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 “Governance Reform at Research in Motion (RIM) Ltd. ”, 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 “Governance Reform at Research in Motion (RIM) Ltd.” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.





NPV Analysis of Governance Reform at Research in Motion (RIM) Ltd.



References & Further Readings

Yee-Ching Lilian Chan, Horng-Tzu Hao (2018), "Governance Reform at Research in Motion (RIM) Ltd. Harvard Business Review Case Study. Published by HBR Publications.


Resideo Tech SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Electronic Instr. & Controls


Amino SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Software & Programming


Akers Biosciences SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs


Union Optech SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Scientific & Technical Instr.


Axel Mark SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Services , Motion Pictures


Line SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Computer Services


Sanritsu Corp SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Containers & Packaging


Torre Industries Ltd SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Capital Goods , Misc. Capital Goods


Milton Corp SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Financial , Misc. Financial Services