Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Standards for Child Sponsorship Agencies (A) case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Esther Scott, David Brown. The Standards for Child Sponsorship Agencies (A) (referred as “Agencies Child” 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, Emerging markets, Human resource management, Marketing, Organizational culture, Project management, Social enterprise, Strategic planning.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study Standards for Child Sponsorship Agencies (A) ” 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?
In the spring of 1998, nonprofit agencies known as "child-sponsorship" organizations found themselves on the defensive. The agencies-dedicated to raising charitable funds in the United States to support children and their communities in poor, developing countries-had been the subject of a scathing critique, a two-part series in the Chicago Tribune accusing them, in effect, of misleading donors. The series asserted that the organizations had not lived up to the promise implicit in fundraising advertisements: that specific children would benefit directly from the contributions of individual sponsors. The agencies mounted a spirited and largely successful public defense of their approach-one in which aid was targeted not only at individual children but at the communities in which they lived. At the same time, however, they sought new ways to reassure the public about their effectiveness. This case details the ensuing effort by a group of six child sponsorship agencies to agree on "industry" standards that would make their goals and methods clear. The case describes the differing situations of the various organizations so as to lay the groundwork for discussion about likely difficulties in reaching agreement on standards, as well as extrapolation as to what sort of standards could both command consensus among the agencies and satisfy public demands for "transparency." The case serves the broader purpose of framing the issues and dynamics of industry self-regulation more generally, particularly in a nonprofit context. See also, Part B (1665.0). HKS Case Number 1664.0
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, 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.
Every negotiators going into the negotiations should always work out the “what if” scenario. The negotiating parties in the “Standards for Child Sponsorship Agencies (A)” 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.
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 and other people doing the mediation. According to “Esther Scott, David Brown”, 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 “Standards for Child Sponsorship Agencies (A) ”, 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 “Standards for Child Sponsorship Agencies (A)” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Esther Scott, David Brown (2018), "Standards for Child Sponsorship Agencies (A) 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 Standards for Child Sponsorship Agencies (A)
Basic Materials , Chemical Manufacturing
Utilities , Electric Utilities
Technology , Semiconductors
Financial , Investment Services
Technology , Software & Programming
Services , Retail (Apparel)
Services , Retail (Specialty)
Capital Goods , Misc. Capital Goods
Consumer Cyclical , Auto & Truck Parts