×




New York City Center for Economic Opportunity: An Evidence-Based Approach to Alleviate Poverty Negotiation Strategy / MBA Resources

Introduction to Negotiation Strategy

Negotiation Strategy solution for New York City Center for Economic Opportunity: An Evidence-Based Approach to Alleviate Poverty case study


At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. New York City Center for Economic Opportunity: An Evidence-Based Approach to Alleviate Poverty case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Anjani Datla, Julie Boatright Wilson, Dan Levy. The New York City Center for Economic Opportunity: An Evidence-Based Approach to Alleviate Poverty (referred as “White Programs” 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, Budgeting, Economy, Joint ventures, Policy, Social enterprise.

Negotiation strategy solution for case study New York City Center for Economic Opportunity: An Evidence-Based Approach to Alleviate Poverty ” 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.


BATNA in Negotiation Strategy


Three questions every negotiator should ask before entering into a negotiation process-

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?



12 Hrs

$59.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

24 Hrs

$49.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

48 Hrs

$39.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now




Case Description of New York City Center for Economic Opportunity: An Evidence-Based Approach to Alleviate Poverty Case Study


In late 2006, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg created the Center for Economic Opportunity (CEO). Born out of recommendations made by the Bloomberg appointed public-private Commission for Economic Opportunity, CEO was designed to be an innovations lab that would test anti-poverty programs by applying a results-based approach. With a budget of $100 million, CEO would closely monitor new programs and hold them accountable for producing measurable results. Uniquely, CEO would cut funding for programs that did not "make the grade." Bloomberg named Veronica White the Executive Director of CEO. White had decades of experience working in executive positions in several New York City agencies but with CEO she had daunting tasks ahead. She would have to redefine how poverty was measured in the city, facilitate cross agency partnerships, and most important, develop an effective and achievable evaluation system for all programs. This case traces the CEO team's challenges in placing program evaluation at the core of their mission. CEO programs are geared toward three target populations-working poor adults, young adults between the ages of 16 and 24, and families with children ages five and below. In the first year of operation, White and her team launched a slate of anti-poverty programs that varied widely in scale and scope and ranged from New York's first ever conditional cash transfer program to a program that would accelerate graduation rates in community colleges. But from the beginning, CEO's evidence-based programming was put to the test. White faced constant pressure to "produce results quickly." With the 2008 recession, however, CEO endured significant cuts in its evaluation budget. White and her team had to make the most of limited resources while still sustaining a comprehensive evaluation policy. Case Number 1971.0


Case Authors : Anjani Datla, Julie Boatright Wilson, Dan Levy

Topic : Global Business

Related Areas : Budgeting, Economy, Joint ventures, Policy, Social enterprise




Seven Elemental Tools of Negotiation that can be used in New York City Center for Economic Opportunity: An Evidence-Based Approach to Alleviate Poverty solution


1. Satisfies everyone’s core interests (yours and theirs)


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.





2. Is the best of many options

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.


3. Meets legitimate, fair standards

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.


4. Is better than your alternatives or BATNA

Every negotiators going into the negotiations should always work out the “what if” scenario. The negotiating parties in the “New York City Center for Economic Opportunity: An Evidence-Based Approach to Alleviate Poverty” 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.


5. Is comprised of clear, realistic commitments

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.


6. Is the result of effective communication?

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.


7. Managing relationship with counterparty

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 “Anjani Datla, Julie Boatright Wilson, Dan Levy”, 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.




Different types of negotiators – what is your style of negotiation

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 York City Center for Economic Opportunity: An Evidence-Based Approach to Alleviate Poverty ”, 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 York City Center for Economic Opportunity: An Evidence-Based Approach to Alleviate Poverty” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.





NPV Analysis of New York City Center for Economic Opportunity: An Evidence-Based Approach to Alleviate Poverty



References & Further Readings

Anjani Datla, Julie Boatright Wilson, Dan Levy (2018), "New York City Center for Economic Opportunity: An Evidence-Based Approach to Alleviate Poverty Harvard Business Review Case Study. Published by HBR Publications.


SMVD Poly Pack SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Containers & Packaging


Emdeki Utama SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Chemical Manufacturing


Navios Maritime Partners LP SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Transportation , Water Transportation


Imperium Group Global SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Consumer Cyclical , Furniture & Fixtures


Mitsubishi Logistics Corp. SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Transportation , Water Transportation


Magnus Energy Group Ltd SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Energy , Oil Well Services & Equipment


Wan Cheng Metal Packaging SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Containers & Packaging


Sing On SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Capital Goods , Construction Services


Airport City SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Services , Real Estate Operations