Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. The Pitfalls of Project Status Reporting case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Mark Keil, H. Jeff Smith, Charalambos L. Iacovou, Ronald L Thompson. The The Pitfalls of Project Status Reporting (referred as “Project Status” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Technology & Operations. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, Leadership.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study The Pitfalls of Project Status Reporting ” 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?
This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. All too frequently, executives are caught by surprise when projects -especially complex IT projects -run into trouble. But complex projects do not fail overnight; they fail one day at a time, and generally only after numerous warning signs. The authors have been involved in 14 academic studies about the ways in which individuals report (and misreport) the status of IT projects and how the recipients of those reports respond to the information they receive.The authors' research suggests that understanding the underlying dynamics of project status reporting can help limit the chances of nasty surprises. In particular, they identify five "inconvenient truths" about project status reporting: 1. Executives can't rely on project staff and other employees to accurately report project status information and to speak up when they see problems. Many employees have a tendency to put a positive spin on anything they report to senior management. When the organizational climate is not receptive to bad news, truthful reporting can be inhibited 2. A variety of reasons can cause people to misreport about project status. Executives tend to attribute misreporting to poor ethical behavior on the employee's part. In fact, employees misreport for a variety of reasons; individual traits, work climate and cultural norms all can play a role. 3. An aggressive audit team can't counter the effects of project status misreporting and withholding of information by project staff. Executives may conclude that the best way to address the problem of misreporting is to rely on auditors to make sure that project status reports are accurate. However, once auditors are added to the mix, negative organizational dynamics can lead to a dysfunctional cycle that results in even less openness. 4. Putting a senior executive in charge of a project may increase misreporting. Although having a senior executive as a project sponsor often proves wise politically and can help in securing resources for a project, the involvement of senior leaders does not make it any easier to track project status. 5. Executives often ignore bad news if they do receive it. A number of the authors'studies found situations where employees went to share their concerns about a project with powerful decision makers who had the ability to change the course of the project (or stop it), but were unsuccessful. The authors propose solutions to reduce the risk of being blindsided by any of these inconvenient truths. They include a self-diagnostic survey to help you assess whether you may be at risk for an unpleasant project management surprise.
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 “The Pitfalls of Project Status Reporting” 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 “Mark Keil, H. Jeff Smith, Charalambos L. Iacovou, Ronald L Thompson”, 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 “The Pitfalls of Project Status Reporting ”, 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 “The Pitfalls of Project Status Reporting” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Mark Keil, H. Jeff Smith, Charalambos L. Iacovou, Ronald L Thompson (2018), "The Pitfalls of Project Status Reporting 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 The Pitfalls of Project Status Reporting
Energy , Oil & Gas Operations
Technology , Software & Programming
Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs
Basic Materials , Metal Mining
Financial , Investment Services
Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs
Basic Materials , Fabricated Plastic & Rubber
Capital Goods , Construction Services
Basic Materials , Forestry & Wood Products
Consumer Cyclical , Recreational Products
Technology , Computer Services
Transportation , Trucking
