Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. New Peril, Old Adversary: George W. Bush, 9/11, & Iraq (B): The Road to War, September 2002 to March 2003 case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Arne Westad, Pamela Varley. The New Peril, Old Adversary: George W. Bush, 9/11, & Iraq (B): The Road to War, September 2002 to March 2003 (referred as “Iraq War” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Global Business. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, Government, Leadership.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study New Peril, Old Adversary: George W. Bush, 9/11, & Iraq (B): The Road to War, September 2002 to March 2003 ” 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?
Supplement to case KS1267. The U.S. choice to go to war with Iraq, beginning in March 2003, was enormously consequential. This two-part case, developed for an HKS course called "Power Shifts: Understanding Global Change Through History," goes back in time to trace the evolution of American policy toward Iraq prior to 9/11, and the shift in thinking that led to war with Iraq during the administration of George W. Bush. The two parts of the case cover different parts of the chronology. While each could be used on its own, they are intended for use together. The (A) case, subtitled "The United States & Iraq, 1980 to 2002," briefly summarizes US policy toward Iraq after World War II, in the context of the Iran-Iraq War, and during the Persian Gulf War. It describes the frustrations inherent in the "aggressive containment" approach in the decade following. The case describes Bush Administration thinking about Iraq before 9/11, and the shift in thinking after that attack, including tensions within the Administration. The case ends in September 2002, with a tense battle between Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell over what President Bush should say about Iraq in his upcoming September 12 address to the United Nations. The (B) case, subtitled "The Road to War, September 2002 to March 2003," begins with the President's address to the UN, and continues with the Administration's efforts to persuade the U.S. Congress and the United Nations that Iraq was manufacturing WMD, the simultaneous pursuit of a diplomacy track while preparing for war, and negotiations with a critical U.S. ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The case ends with President George W. Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein-that he and his sons leave Iraq within 48 hours, or face war with the United States. Case number 2131.0
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 “New Peril, Old Adversary: George W. Bush, 9/11, & Iraq (B): The Road to War, September 2002 to March 2003” 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 “Arne Westad, Pamela Varley”, 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 “New Peril, Old Adversary: George W. Bush, 9/11, & Iraq (B): The Road to War, September 2002 to March 2003 ”, 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 “New Peril, Old Adversary: George W. Bush, 9/11, & Iraq (B): The Road to War, September 2002 to March 2003” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Arne Westad, Pamela Varley (2018), "New Peril, Old Adversary: George W. Bush, 9/11, & Iraq (B): The Road to War, September 2002 to March 2003 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 New Peril, Old Adversary: George W. Bush, 9/11, & Iraq (B): The Road to War, September 2002 to March 2003
Basic Materials , Metal Mining
Capital Goods , Construction Services
Technology , Electronic Instr. & Controls
Services , Business Services
Technology , Communications Equipment
Financial , Consumer Financial Services
Basic Materials , Paper & Paper Products
Technology , Computer Services
Energy , Oil Well Services & Equipment
Financial , Consumer Financial Services
Basic Materials , Chemical Manufacturing
