Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. The Trouble With Corporate Compliance Programs case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Todd Haugh. The The Trouble With Corporate Compliance Programs (referred as “Compliance Unethical” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Organizational Development. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy , negotiation framework, .
Negotiation strategy solution for case study The Trouble With Corporate Compliance Programs ” 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?
Multinational corporations spend millions of dollars per year on compliance. In highly regulated industries, such as health care and finance, large companies spend much more, sometimes hiring hundreds or even thousands of compliance officers at a time. There is often a belief on the part of corporate leaders that when rigorous compliance programs are in place, employee wrongdoing will largely disappear.If something does go wrong, the hope is that having a comprehensive program will help convince regulators that the company's compliance initiatives were "effective,"the standard used in U.S. sentencing guidelines. Unfortunately, even today's most comprehensive programs won't curtail corporate wrongdoing or the government intervention that follows. Volkswagen AG's compliance program didn't stop its employees from installing "defeat device"software to cheat emissions tests, nor did Wells Fargo & Co.'s policies prevent its employees from opening new customer accounts without authorization. More than 15 years after the Enron Corp. scandal, most companies know very little about how employees make ethical decisions or the psychological mechanisms that cause them to perform unethical and illegal acts. Even fewer have compliance strategies aimed at curbing such behaviors. The goal of this article is to pull together the burgeoning field of behavioral ethics, which provides insight into how individuals make ethical decisions, with the work of criminologists who study individual and corporate criminality. The author seeks to explain why corporate compliance efforts are falling short and how those efforts can be improved. In addition, he offers practical and cost-effective strategies for improving compliance programs that focus on employee behavior, which he says is the best way to make compliance truly effective. Corporate compliance depends on the behavior of individual employees. If employees, officers, and managers always acted in a law-abiding and ethical manner, compliance failures would rarely occur. But that is not realistic. That is why companies need to be aware of how and why employees act the way they do. This starts with understanding how people make decisions generally and how that translates to ethical decision-making. The article describes eight common rationalizations used by those committing unethical and illegal acts within companies. Corporate leaders need to understand these rationalizations and be able to identify their usage as part of an effective compliance program. The author acknowledges that no compliance program will entirely eliminate bad employee conduct. But behaviorally cognizant programs, ones that seek to understand employee decision-making and target the cognitive mechanisms that foster unethicality, hold the promise of reducing unethical and illegal behavior within a company.
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 “The Trouble With Corporate Compliance Programs” 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 “Todd Haugh”, 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 Trouble With Corporate Compliance Programs ”, 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 Trouble With Corporate Compliance Programs” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Todd Haugh (2018), "The Trouble With Corporate Compliance Programs 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 Trouble With Corporate Compliance Programs
Financial , Misc. Financial Services
Capital Goods , Misc. Capital Goods
Basic Materials , Chemical Manufacturing
Services , Restaurants
Financial , Investment Services
Services , Business Services
Services , Real Estate Operations
Technology , Software & Programming
Services , Retail (Catalog & Mail Order)
Services , Business Services
Basic Materials , Chemical Manufacturing
Capital Goods , Construction Services