×




Gravity Payments: $70,000 Minimum Salary Company Negotiation Strategy / MBA Resources

Introduction to Negotiation Strategy

Negotiation Strategy solution for Gravity Payments: $70,000 Minimum Salary Company case study


At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Gravity Payments: $70,000 Minimum Salary Company case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Won-Yong Oh, Youngkyun Chang. The Gravity Payments: $70,000 Minimum Salary Company (referred as “Gravity Price'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, Motivating people.

Negotiation strategy solution for case study Gravity Payments: $70,000 Minimum Salary Company ” 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 Gravity Payments: $70,000 Minimum Salary Company Case Study


In April 2015, Dan Price, chief executive officer and founder of Gravity Payments, a private credit card processing and financial services company, announced that every employee would receive a minimum annual salary of US$70,000 over the next three years. Price said he was concerned about the increasing pay gap in the United States and news of his bold move went viral, causing debate over employee compensation plans and the wealth gap in society. At first, there was applause for his radical actions, causing an initial rise in new business. However, there was almost an immediate backlash both internally and externally. One senior worker at the company resigned, claiming that lesser-skilled workers would simply clock in and out while highly skilled workers were not similarly compensated with raises. A lawsuit was filed by Price's brother, a minority shareholder, who believed that the move would hurt the company. A number of clients left Gravity Payments while other companies criticized the move, saying it made them look stingy. Price attempted to tackle pay inequality by increasing salaries, but this created controversy. Employees were not the only stakeholders affected by Price's actions. What should Price do now? Won-Yong Oh is affiliated with UNIV OF CALGARY.


Case Authors : Won-Yong Oh, Youngkyun Chang

Topic : Leadership & Managing People

Related Areas : Motivating people




Seven Elemental Tools of Negotiation that can be used in Gravity Payments: $70,000 Minimum Salary Company 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 “Gravity Payments: $70,000 Minimum Salary Company” 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 “Won-Yong Oh, Youngkyun Chang”, 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 “Gravity Payments: $70,000 Minimum Salary Company ”, 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 “Gravity Payments: $70,000 Minimum Salary Company” 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 Gravity Payments: $70,000 Minimum Salary Company



References & Further Readings

Won-Yong Oh, Youngkyun Chang (2018), "Gravity Payments: $70,000 Minimum Salary Company Harvard Business Review Case Study. Published by HBR Publications.


Provexis SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs


Cass SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Financial , Consumer Financial Services


Romanson SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Consumer Cyclical , Jewelry & Silverware


Daewoo Shipbuilding SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Transportation , Water Transportation


Vopia SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Computer Services


Lennar B SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Capital Goods , Construction Services


Exelon SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Utilities , Electric Utilities


Zhangzidao Fish A SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Fish/Livestock


Chalice Gold Mines SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Gold & Silver


Smart-Core Holdings SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Electronic Instr. & Controls