Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. American Repertory Theatre in the 1990s (A) case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by James A. Phills, Ed Martenson, Gregory Scott. The American Repertory Theatre in the 1990s (A) (referred as “Brustein Orchard” 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, Strategic planning.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study American Repertory Theatre in the 1990s (A) ” 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 early January 1993, American Repertory Theatre's (ART) Artistic Director Robert Brustein and Managing Director Robert Orchard were concerned about ART's financial situation. Major government funders had communicated plans to cut sharply, and possibly eliminate, their annual support. These threats raised the specter of a reduction in resources that could undermine ART's continued ability to realize its ambitious, but costly, artistic vision. In 13 years, ART's annual budget had grown from just over $1 million to nearly $6 million, with substantial increases in earned income, contributed support, and endowment. Given the deteriorating outlook for contributed support in 1994, Brustein and Orchard faced a limited set of options, all of which were likely to constrain the artistic freedom Brustein and Orchard prized so highly and any one of which could alienate the loyal but discerning audience that ART had cultivated so carefully, damaging its hard-won reputation and eroding the cutting-edge image that appealed to the national funders. As they met to finalize the program planning and budget for the 1994 season, Brustein and Orchard found it increasingly difficult to identify new sources of income to compensate for the cutbacks they expected. The case highlights, in particular, the way in which mission and strategy are executed through choices about policies, activities, and resource allocation.
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 “American Repertory Theatre in the 1990s (A)” 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 “James A. Phills, Ed Martenson, Gregory Scott”, 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 “American Repertory Theatre in the 1990s (A) ”, 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 “American Repertory Theatre in the 1990s (A)” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
James A. Phills, Ed Martenson, Gregory Scott (2018), "American Repertory Theatre in the 1990s (A) 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 American Repertory Theatre in the 1990s (A)
Technology , Computer Services
Basic Materials , Metal Mining
Technology , Software & Programming
Basic Materials , Gold & Silver
Energy , Oil & Gas Operations
Financial , Regional Banks
Technology , Semiconductors
Capital Goods , Construction Services
Transportation , Trucking
Services , Real Estate Operations
Services , Real Estate Operations