Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Safaricom 2018: The Emerging-Markets Payments Battle case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Yiorgos Allayannis, Jenny Craddock. The Safaricom 2018: The Emerging-Markets Payments Battle (referred as “Safaricom Frontier” 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, Financial markets, International business.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study Safaricom 2018: The Emerging-Markets Payments Battle ” 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?
The case discusses the decision of a hypothetical London-based hedge fund manager, Greg Rubin, who manages a fund primarily investing in emerging and frontier markets to decide whether to buy (or short) Safaricom, a Kenya-based telecom and financial services company that became globally known more than a decade ago (2007) for its use of technology to facilitate payments via mobile phones. There was a real need in Kenya for a different system of payments and money transfers, given the large underbanked population (almost 80% lacking a formal bank account) and the widespread use of cash. M-Pesa, the system introduced by Safaricom was an astounding success and quickly achieved a dominant position in the Kenyan marketplace. Kenyans embraced the use of mobile phones to transfer money and pay bills. More than 10 years later, at the time of the case (March 2018), Safaricom's dominance is challenged by a series of missteps expanding abroad (e.g., to South Africa), increased competition at home, as well as the introduction of 3G and advanced smartphone technology. The case allows for an examination of the investment thesis for Safaricom and its valuation. This requires the analysis of payment systems and their evolution in frontier markets as well as the analysis of country/political risk, among others. It is the combination of an innovative company from a frontier market and the introduction of new technologies that make this case interesting (and challenging) to analyze-by no means an obvious decision for Rubin.
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 “Safaricom 2018: The Emerging-Markets Payments Battle” 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 “Yiorgos Allayannis, Jenny Craddock”, 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 “Safaricom 2018: The Emerging-Markets Payments Battle ”, 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 “Safaricom 2018: The Emerging-Markets Payments Battle” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Yiorgos Allayannis, Jenny Craddock (2018), "Safaricom 2018: The Emerging-Markets Payments Battle 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 Safaricom 2018: The Emerging-Markets Payments Battle
Services , Restaurants
Energy , Oil & Gas Operations
Capital Goods , Construction Services
Services , Personal Services
Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs
Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs
Transportation , Misc. Transportation
Capital Goods , Construction Services
Technology , Software & Programming
Services , Schools
