Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. PLAYING TO WIN: LEADERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY AT ESB ELECTRIC UTILITY case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by George Kohlrieser, Francisco Szekely, Sophie Coughlan. The PLAYING TO WIN: LEADERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY AT ESB ELECTRIC UTILITY (referred as “Esb Utility” 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, Social responsibility, Sustainability.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study PLAYING TO WIN: LEADERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY AT ESB ELECTRIC UTILITY ” 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 2007, the Irish electric utility, Electricity Supply Board (ESB) - 95% publicly owned-, contributed 15% of Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. It owned the largest point sources of the country's rising carbon dioxide emissions. Due to extraordinary economic development, Ireland's greenhouse gases emissions were continually rising.The situation was clearly untenable. In March 2008, ESB's chief executive Padraig McManus made the startling announcement that the company would become a net-zero carbon emitter by 2035, and would still remain competitive. Under his leadership, ESB was going to lead the way in slowing the growth of Ireland's GHG emissions. He declared that to achieve this goal, ESB would invest a??22 billion over 15 years to develop alternative clean technologies, including energy efficiency measures, the use of clean coal, and the connection of an electricity-generating wind farm to the national grid. His target would make ESB the world's first carbon-neutral electric utility. This strategy presented a number of significant risks: 1) Financial risk - the a??22 billion capital investment had to succeed. 2) Technological and ecological risks - the strategic framework relied on clean coal technology, still being developed. 3) Credibility risk - what if ESB was not able to achieve its goal? 4) Stakeholder risk - Landowners, concerned over health, environment and property prices, were ready to oppose the wind farms. McManus was conscious of the risks, and he also knew that high performing leaders always take risks even while confronting dilemmas such as: Could an electric utility achieve a zero carbon footprint and remain competitive? Can a responsible leader risk jeopardizing the present and future well-being of his company, the environment, and his country? Could he exert his leadership by influencing Irish, and possibly European, climate policy? The case provides an opportunity for a debate on responsible leadership. It was written for use in senior executive and MBA programs. Learning objectives: 1) How can responsible leaders balance the competing pressures for economic performance, ecological protection and social responsibility and continue growing the business? 2) What kinds of risks can responsible leaders undertake? 3) How can responsible leaders create value for their shareholders and stakeholders? 4) Can the leader of small European electric utility influence the entire European electric utility sector?
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 “PLAYING TO WIN: LEADERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY AT ESB ELECTRIC UTILITY” 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 “George Kohlrieser, Francisco Szekely, Sophie Coughlan”, 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 “PLAYING TO WIN: LEADERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY AT ESB ELECTRIC UTILITY ”, 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 “PLAYING TO WIN: LEADERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY AT ESB ELECTRIC UTILITY” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
George Kohlrieser, Francisco Szekely, Sophie Coughlan (2018), "PLAYING TO WIN: LEADERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY AT ESB ELECTRIC UTILITY 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 PLAYING TO WIN: LEADERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY AT ESB ELECTRIC UTILITY
Utilities , Water Utilities
Technology , Communications Equipment
Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs
Technology , Electronic Instr. & Controls
Technology , Semiconductors
Consumer Cyclical , Footwear
Capital Goods , Construction Services
Basic Materials , Metal Mining
Basic Materials , Containers & Packaging
