Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Disruption in Detroit: Ford, Silicon Valley, and Beyond (B) case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Ernest Gundling. The Disruption in Detroit: Ford, Silicon Valley, and Beyond (B) (referred as “Ford Ford's” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Leadership & Managing People. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, Change management, Disruptive innovation, Leadership, Technology.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study Disruption in Detroit: Ford, Silicon Valley, and Beyond (B) ” 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 (A) case focuses on the Ford Motor Company in Spring 2016 and how its then-CEO, Mark Fields, and his senior management team should best respond to several emerging disruptive technologies that will ultimately force the automaker to modify its current business model. These disruptive technologies includes electric vehicles, connectivity autonomous vehicles, car ownership and use, and emergence of subcompact cares. Having experienced a successful financial turnaround under the leadership of its prior CEO, Alan Mulally, during and after the 2008-09 recession, Ford must now decide whether its current investment in responding to these new emerging technologies is too much, too little or just right. As Ford considers the degree of its response, it also faces new competitors in the fast-changing automotive landscape -- besides its traditional automaker rivals like General Motors, Toyota and Hyundai -- that now includes the Google, Apple and Tesla from the Silicon Valley as well as BYD and LeEco from China. Ford's history of innovation in response to past opportunities and challenges is also discussed. The (B) case provides an update on Ford's strategy during the fall of 2017, following the dismissal of Fields and the appointment of former Steelcase CEO and Fort Smart Mobility (FSM) chair Jim Hackett as his successor in May 2017. Faced with a drop of 37 percent in Ford's stock price during Field's tenure, declining year-over-year vehicle sales in early 2017, and the view of some Ford Board members that the company needed to more successfully communicate its recent strategic moves in the mobility space, Hackett lays five themes to turnaround the company, while keeping his eye on the "now, near, and far" on the company's performance.
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 “Disruption in Detroit: Ford, Silicon Valley, and Beyond (B)” 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 “Ernest Gundling”, 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 “Disruption in Detroit: Ford, Silicon Valley, and Beyond (B) ”, 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 “Disruption in Detroit: Ford, Silicon Valley, and Beyond (B)” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Ernest Gundling (2018), "Disruption in Detroit: Ford, Silicon Valley, and Beyond (B) 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 Disruption in Detroit: Ford, Silicon Valley, and Beyond (B)
Capital Goods , Construction Services
Technology , Semiconductors
Basic Materials , Metal Mining
Basic Materials , Non-Metallic Mining
Technology , Computer Hardware
Basic Materials , Fabricated Plastic & Rubber
Services , Retail (Specialty)
Technology , Electronic Instr. & Controls
Services , Retail (Home Improvement)
Energy , Coal
Services , Printing & Publishing
Consumer Cyclical , Textiles - Non Apparel
