Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Houston We Have A Problem: They Paid Themselves Bonuses! case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Pascale Lapointe-Antunes, Deborah McPhee. The Houston We Have A Problem: They Paid Themselves Bonuses! (referred as “Amanda Duffy” 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, Compensation, Ethics, Financial management.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study Houston We Have A Problem: They Paid Themselves Bonuses! ” 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?
It was June of 2006, and Amanda Walsh, interim CFO, was soundly criticizing herself for not seeing the bigger picture of what had gone on during the previous 18 months at Vanderville Plastics Company (VPC). Two prior years' financials were still in "draft" form with auditors' statements showing that the firm might not be a going concern. Peter Giroux, the CFO who hired her, had kept Amanda from having any interaction with the company vice presidents, the board, or the owners, maintained a tight grip on both the human resources and payroll operations, and refused to provide details when she questioned him about any aspect of the financial operations. Then, in January of 2006, close to a million dollars in bonuses were paid to senior management and employees, despite the company's precarious cash flow position. Not long after the bonus payment Peter resigned unexpectedly. Today's phone call from Ken Duffy, one of the owners, made all the pieces fit together. Duffy had called for clarification about the sudden decrease in the company's accrued liabilities. The call ended abruptly when Amanda told him that bonuses were paid for performance in the previous 2005 fiscal year. His shocked reaction on the phone made it clear that the owners had not authorized the bonus payments. Amanda started to think about the succession of events since she came to VPC to better understand what this all meant, what was likely to happen next, and what she should do. The case exposes students to the day-to-day life of a professional accountant employed in a small business. COSO considers opportunistic behavior from senior management to secure incentive compensation by using adjusting journal entries the most likely way for fraud to occur. Looking at the events surrounding the payout as they unfold through in the day-to-day life of Amanda should help students develop the professional judgment and skepticism required to better interpret the oral assertions made by management, assess the RMM resulting from fraud, and provide recommendations to improve a client organization's control environment and fraud risk management practices related to incentive compensation and management override of controls.
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 “Houston We Have A Problem: They Paid Themselves Bonuses!” 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 “Pascale Lapointe-Antunes, Deborah McPhee”, 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 “Houston We Have A Problem: They Paid Themselves Bonuses! ”, 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 “Houston We Have A Problem: They Paid Themselves Bonuses!” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Pascale Lapointe-Antunes, Deborah McPhee (2018), "Houston We Have A Problem: They Paid Themselves Bonuses! 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 Houston We Have A Problem: They Paid Themselves Bonuses!
Financial , Misc. Financial Services
Basic Materials , Metal Mining
Basic Materials , Chemical Manufacturing
Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Personal & Household Prods.
Financial , Investment Services
Technology , Electronic Instr. & Controls
Basic Materials , Gold & Silver
Basic Materials , Paper & Paper Products
Basic Materials , Gold & Silver
Capital Goods , Constr. - Supplies & Fixtures
Energy , Oil & Gas Operations
