Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Gazi (B): Bringing the sum of the parts together with the whole case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Derek F. Abell. The Gazi (B): Bringing the sum of the parts together with the whole (referred as “Gazi's Tourism” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Innovation & Entrepreneurship. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, Emerging markets, Entrepreneurship, Financial analysis, Leadership, Leadership development, Organizational structure, Risk management, Succession planning.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study Gazi (B): Bringing the sum of the parts together with the whole ” 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 Gazi B case focuses on two issues: First, it provides a bottom-up perspective on each of Gazi's main lines of business, namely, the Avis/Budget car rental and other vehicle and leasing businesses, in-bound tourism, outbound tourism and ticketing, conference and event business, and cruise ship landings. Detailed plans are presented for each of these business lines and can be contrasted with plans and figures presented in the A case which provided a top-down perspective. The two perspectives remain far apart. Gazi's top-down vision is to have overall company revenues of a??100 million within five years; bottom-up estimates range from a??50 million overall downwards. The case invites a debate of how to reconcile these two disparate perspectives. It allows students to understand that the real issue behind these disparate growth goals is to decide first and foremost on the overall corporate business definition and scope, and whether the previous pattern of continuous diversification is sustainable in the long run. Also worth debating is whether Gazi's focus on top line revenue growth, and on employee projections, should not be tempered by a parallel concern for the bottom line, for example profitability. The second in the B case is to decide on a possible brand name to replace Albanian Experience for the incoming tourism and conference business. This existing brand's credibility and utility has been overtaken by a substantial de-facto expansion of tourism destinations to include virtually all of the Balkan area, Greece to the south and parts of Italy to the north, as well as destinations in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Although the corporate scope and focus issue and the branding issue appear to be separate, they are of course related. A new brand name must be found which if possible reflects the overall business scope as well as the new tourist sources, destinations, and USPs.
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 “Gazi (B): Bringing the sum of the parts together with the whole” 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 “Derek F. Abell”, 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 “Gazi (B): Bringing the sum of the parts together with the whole ”, 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 “Gazi (B): Bringing the sum of the parts together with the whole” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Derek F. Abell (2018), "Gazi (B): Bringing the sum of the parts together with the whole 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 Gazi (B): Bringing the sum of the parts together with the whole
Services , Business Services
Basic Materials , Metal Mining
Energy , Oil Well Services & Equipment
Technology , Computer Services
Basic Materials , Paper & Paper Products
Services , Retail (Specialty)
Technology , Communications Equipment
Basic Materials , Metal Mining
Capital Goods , Construction Services
Technology , Electronic Instr. & Controls
Capital Goods , Construction Services
