Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Learning When to Stop Momentum case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Michelle A. Barton, Kathleen M. Sutcliffe. The Learning When to Stop Momentum (referred as “Dysfunctional Momentum” 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, Leadership, Organizational culture.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study Learning When to Stop Momentum ” 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?
This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. "Dysfunctional momentum" occurs when people continue to work toward an original goal without pausing to recalibrate or reexamine their processes, even in the face of cues that suggest they should change course. In the authors' study of firefighting teams as a metaphor for business organizations, where dysfunctional momentum arises daily, they found that it has at least five possible causes: (1) an overemphasis on action and decisiveness, which often precludes meaningful assessment along the way; (2) evaluating people, processes and outcomes against plans rather than reevaluating the plans themselves; (3) the cumulative effects of small changes that can ripple and grow throughout the organization; (4) the tendency to ignore or co-opt disconfirming evidence; and (5) deference to authority even when leaders are not especially in the know. To overcome dysfunctional momentum, the authors conclude, we have to create interruptions -points at which we can ask: What's the story now? Is it the same story as before? If not, how has it changed? And how, if at all, should we adjust our actions? The people in charge need to stop and reassess what is happening around them. Two interconnected factors tend to be instrumental, say the authors. First, individuals have to recognize their own inability to understand fully and predict the unfolding situation by themselves -they have to develop "situated humility."Second, they must actively create or seek out disruptive information -they have to accept interruptions so that people may reevaluate the story they are maintaining in their minds.
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 “Learning When to Stop Momentum” 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 “Michelle A. Barton, Kathleen M. Sutcliffe”, 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 “Learning When to Stop Momentum ”, 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 “Learning When to Stop Momentum” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Michelle A. Barton, Kathleen M. Sutcliffe (2018), "Learning When to Stop Momentum 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 Learning When to Stop Momentum
Capital Goods , Construction - Raw Materials
Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Food Processing
Consumer Cyclical , Auto & Truck Manufacturers
Basic Materials , Containers & Packaging
Technology , Software & Programming
Consumer Cyclical , Auto & Truck Parts
Capital Goods , Constr. - Supplies & Fixtures
Basic Materials , Gold & Silver
Basic Materials , Forestry & Wood Products
Technology , Scientific & Technical Instr.
Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Food Processing
