Student name: Michael Chen Student number: 3219269 Course Code: MGMT3721 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Class: Weds2-4pm Role: Board of Education What outcome did you achieve in the Newtown School Dispute and how you can ‘justify’ this outcome against your main interests and original goals (‘why you were there’)? In answering, refer to the ‘underlying interests’ as explained in the general brief and your role brief (Perhaps 700-1,000 words) In the Newtown School dispute negotiation, I played the role of the Board of Education. I have personal interest and the interest of the board. At the Board of Education level, the two main interests are the quality of education and the balance of the budget. Before each team exchanged their opening offer, both team helped to balance the budget from a $1.9million deficit to a $1.6million surplus. One of the outcomes achieved was that there was a decrease in student teacher ratio from 32.4 to 31.4 through the hiring of twelve teachers, who earned the average salary of $40,180 per annum. Hiring of teachers benefits the Teacher’s Union and the Board of Education, because it will decrease the workload of each teacher and also improve the quality of education. The Teacher’s Union feels accomplished by the outcome, because not only could they achieve zero layoffs, but the Board of Education will be hiring new experienced teachers. Teacher’s Union was able to satisfied the welfare of their teachers and also improve the quality of education. We took the principal challenge of a collaborative strategy (Hiam, 2010), where we ignored our initial position with the target of 35 students per teacher, and took an interest based approach. In our initial budget, hiring of new teachers is a conflict of our primary interests between the quality of education and the balancing of the budget. However, we were able to expand the pie enough to align both of our primary interests. I have learnt that our primary interest will lead to our goals, objectives and positions. However if two negotiating team can be integrative enough, the constraints of which leads to position of each team can change, therefore each team’s interest can be satisfied (Lax and Sebenius, 2010). When I am going to negotiate in the future, I will take an interest base negotiation approach. I can abandon my position can focus on the interest of both parties and it will lead to a more superior outcome. Teacher’s working day increased from 7 hours and 5 minutes to 7 hours and 45 minutes. The increase working hour of 40 minutes per day will help the teachers to be better prepared for class. Therefore increasing working hours helps both the Teacher’s Union and the Board of Education to improve 1|Page because we were able to cut down the cost of paper.6million. therefore $0. If neither one of the parties move away from their initial offer. Maintenance costs have been heavily reduced from $2. Through packaging our deal. Note Slay. 2007). the Note Slay has decrease the expenditure of the Board of Education which the Board can attribute to other areas where quality of education can be improved. because students will have everything in their one computing unit and information can be sent instantaneously by the teachers. design and technology participation and detentions. has achieved both of the Board of Education’s underlying interest. I recognised the importance of a ‘give and take’ negotiation methodology. Paper. teachers and parents. Through the new town negotiation. decreasing maintenance cost through implementing school working bee and transport cost.35 per trip. which contributed to 46% of the increase in cost. In my future multiple issues negotiation. The initial offer of two negotiating parties is usually opposing.Student name: Michael Chen Student number: 3219269 Course Code: MGMT3721 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Class: Weds 2-4pm Role: Board of Education of the quality of education.000. The introduction of transport fee serves the purpose of fund raising to balance budget and also helps the Board of Education to frame for an increase in local tax in the future. the negotiation will not continue any further. I would bundle issues together to create one offer instead of fighting for positions in one single issue. has been replaced with modern technology. It is very useful to package multiple issues together. we all agreed that we should concede in students to teacher to trade it for an increase in working hours.3million to $720. because they use to have a free transportation system 2|Page . The modern technology.70 per student per day. In our initial team preparation. Furthermore. The initial budget surplus has generated to $1. because each party can prioritise their interest and achieve a more satisfying result than if issues were negotiate individually. however we recognise the claims of other party and we expected to change our opening offer in order to reach an agreement (Sheldon and John. we were able to give what the teacher’s union would like and also satisfy our interest to improve the quality of education. Our initial target is a full 8 hours working day. Similarly. The introduction of transport fee will have an endowment effect on the parents. Although the saving of maintenance cost occurred due to the cost being passed to student. it has not affected the Board of Education’s interests of strategic quality of education and balancing the budget. The Note Slay will improve quality of education. there is an introduction of $0. The saving of maintenance cost will come from school working bee. If the transportation cost is to be implemented. I feel that Mike played the role of a stabilizer. because I feel that I have an interest to keep my client. All the cost reduction methods have not conflicted with the interest to improve the quality of education. The Transportation cost can only be justified if the generated fund was able to dramatically improve the quality of education. because both parties are able to meet their primary interest. one of the important thing is to well define my main interest and attempt to define the opposition’s main interest. Stabilizer has the trait of sharing too much information and agreeing on too many issues. there was no strike from the Teacher’s Union and therefore my personal interest of keeping my job is also satisfied. When negotiating strategy in our own team. we were able to expand the pie and create a win-win situation. When I negotiate in the future.g. Furthermore. During the initial team planning stage. How did the questions of individual differences (see e. because both teams were mostly honest with one another and both teams took an integrative approach to the Newtown dispute. However I disapprove of this idea.Student name: Michael Chen Student number: 3219269 Course Code: MGMT3721 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Class: Weds 2-4pm Role: Board of Education (Neale and Bazerman. Mike immediately agreed. At a personal level. that of your team and also the other side’s. because during my negotiation we may able to find creative solutions to meet both parties’ interest. because they will have to pay for something that was once free. the parents may value their free transportation more than the increase in local tax and therefore are willing to pay the increase in tax. 2010). therefore the parents happy. because he would agree to the ideas that Venora and I have thought of without any objections. refer to your own involvement. both teams were able to meet their interest. I feel that the 3|Page . The two personality dimensions are a sign of a stabilizer. The overall outcome is very satisfying for both parties. team dynamics and constituencies influence this negotiation as it played out? In answering. textbook ch. 15). which can influence the outcome of the negotiation.500-1. parents will be unhappy. When Venora brought up the idea of transportation fee in our team planning.800 words) Individuals have their different personalities and abilities. The introduction of transportation cost will increase the budget without undermining the quality of education. Due to the endowment effect. Mike is very extraverted and he is high in agreeableness. Throughout the process of negotiation. With an integrative approach. (Perhaps 1. If I ever encounter another team base negotiation. I would agree if only Teacher’s Union is happy to accept the replacement of teacher’s aid with student teachers’ help. because I tend to always reject the initial offers made by the other team. When we encounter tactic of changing the subject (Nierenberg and Calero. which will maximize the potential gain of the team. When I brought up the topic of exchanging teacher’s aid with student teacher’s help to reduce the cost. Peter quickly changed the subject to transportation without giving an answer to my idea. because the team can no longer take his concessions back without damaging the team’s reputation. I will try to not to play the role of a nonstabilizer in an integrative bargain. A nonstabilizer acted as an obstacle. because the stabilizer will agree to most of the suggestions from the counter party immediately without their teammate’s input and approval (Colosi. we need to organize each member with particular role. After Mike heard Peter’s idea to generate money through transport. We could also bundle issues together such that the person cannot skip their unfavorable issues without skipping their important issues. which will be used to benefit the interest of the Teacher’s Union. However.Student name: Michael Chen Student number: 3219269 Course Code: MGMT3721 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Class: Weds 2-4pm Role: Board of Education stabilizer can give their view without causing any damage to the team’s negotiation. Furthermore a nonstabilizer values position more than interest and therefore embarks on a distributive approach rather than an integrative approach. which slowed down the process of the negotiation. The stabilizer can damage the negotiation. he quickly agreed. I feel that the stabilizer has decreased the team’s bargaining mix every time he agrees to the opposing team’s demand without any concession in return. 2010). we will appoint either a nonstabilizer or a quasimediator to play the role of the spokesman. 4|Page . because the team will not easily concede on their bargaining mix. Each individual have different personality traits and abilities. When we replace teacher’s aid with student teachers help. I feel that the stabilizer can be very damaging during a team negotiation if they were the spokesman. If the Teacher’s Union wants to charge a transportation fee to generate $1million in revenue. I on the other hand believe I played the role of a nonstabilizer. we need to stop the person from skipping the issue and focus on that particular issue. 1983). because I believe I am potentially undermining the possibility of a good negotiation. we could potentially save another $1million in cost. I was able to find that Deb had a personal connection with teacher’s aid. however the reverse did not apply. I would inform her that the quality of the education for the disabled children would not be compromised. It is beneficial for the Teacher’s Union and for the Board of Education. I will investigate the details further to find out the reason why the other party objects to this idea. In the case for Deb. even when Peter and Roberta showed interest in this idea. I tried to cut the cost for compliance (Lewicki et al. On the other 5|Page . where one class is created especially for all the disabled children in the district to reduce cost. Therefore Deb has demonstrated that during a collaborative negotiation. but we need to satisfy the interests of the constitutes on the negotiation table. Malhotra and Bazerman (2010) proposed that if negotiator continued to investigate even after the deals appears to be lost. However Deb. the Teacher’s Union informed us that workload is their most important interest after layoff and salary is one of the least important issues to them. therefore hiring at least 30 new teachers. the whole Teacher’s Union team rejected a potential cost saving idea. When I encounter a dead lock on a great deal. At beginning of negotiation. Furthermore. completely disapproved of this idea. 2010) and be able to expand the resource pie by over $1million.Student name: Michael Chen Course Code: MGMT3721 Class: Weds 2-4pm Student number: 3219269 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Role: Board of Education Later when I tried to re-address the issue of replacing Teacher’s Aid with free student teacher help. Teacher’s Union initially requested student to teacher ratio to be 30. not only do each team need to satisfy the underlying interest. The outcome frame led our team to believe that they were being distributive (Lewicki et al. Deb’s failure to depersonalise the problem (Lewicki et al. Due to the disapproval of one constituent. the negotiator may find useful information about the constraint of the other side. I framed it such that teachers will not be affected at all with their welfare or the quality of education. if I were able to find out her personal attachment during the negotiation. We can suggest having a primary and a secondary school. 2010). who played the role of Teacher’s Union. Deb demonstrated that negative view from one out of three constitutes can influence the whole negotiation. After the negotiation. 2010) reduce the pie expanding process. The Teacher’s Union gave an outcome frame. where they were only concern with the specific student to teacher ratio. the Teacher’s Union have changed their strategy from integrative bargaining to distributive bargaining. Teacher’s Union had difficult time of reopening their initial offer for their most important issue without any criticism for our team. the negotiation parties involved should not practice distributive tactics.5 million surplus will make the Teacher’s Union team to make concessions and settle quickly (Neale and Bazerman. The difference types of frame have caused conflict and Peter immediately opposes the hiring of new quality teachers. At that point. If the Teacher’s Union decide to change their tactic from integrative to distributive it will demonstrate that they are not trust worthy and therefore the agreement might not be effective. However. where in fact it is quite important (Lewicki et al. Furthermore. the Board of Education gave an aspiration frame where we concern with the welfare of the teachers and at the same time concern about the quality of education (Lewicki et al. The Teacher’s Union was very delighted when we agreed to their opening offer. they were shocked once they knew the total cost of hiring 30 new quality teachers is $1. I made a committed in abandoning the deal if the Teacher’s Union team continued to be dishonest and play any distributive tactics. The commitment was made. Venora and I immediately sense bogey. I will keep the same distributive or integrative style throughout the negotiation. trust can be lost during the negotiation.2million.Student name: Michael Chen Student number: 3219269 Course Code: MGMT3721 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Class: Weds 2-4pm Role: Board of Education hand. I have learnt that different type of frames can show the underlying intension of team. 2010). because I believe that the endowment effect from the $1. 2010). because Peter had the same facial expression when I was bogeyed in a previous negotiation. which made the Teacher’s Union team to compromise some of their issues. Different type of frames can also cause conflict and the conflict can be solved when both team’s frame is aligned. 2010). If one team tries to play hardball tactic that occurs in a distributive bargain in an integrative negotiation. Both team initial agreed that Newtown negotiation is an integrative bargaining opportunity. hardball tactics can easily be indentified each negotiation party and it will have a negative influence on the negotiation process. Once the Teacher’s Union informed that their priority list changed. whether they take a distributive or integrative negotiation approach. Furthermore. the commitment was made near deadline. During the process of an integrative negotiation. I have also learnt that if a commitment is 6|Page . If I start with one type of negotiation. Bogey is when the negotiator pretends issue of little importance to them. (2010) ‘Solve Joint Problems to Create and Claim Value’. Reading 1. Colosi. Negotiation: Reading: 97-111. 3. American Behavioral Scientist. M. 27(2): 229-253. D. Nierenberg.H. Lewicki et al.W. A.8 in Lewicki et al. D. M. Lewicki. 10. Negotiation: Reading: 80-96. (eds).H. (2010) ‘Investigative Negoitation’. (eds). Negotiation: Reading: 115-124. 18(1): 115-142. If we can understand the interests of the opposing team and their constitute. N. Malhotra. ch3.J. Reference 1. (2010) ‘Implementing a Collaborative Strategy’. (eds).Student name: Michael Chen Student number: 3219269 Course Code: MGMT3721 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Class: Weds 2-4pm Role: Board of Education made prior to the deadline of the negotiation. Lewicki et al. Negotiation: Reading: 48-64. 4. (2007) ‘AWAs and individual Bargaining in the Era of WorkChoices: A Critical evaluation using negotiation theory’. we will be able to influence and generate a more integrative outcome which will satisfy each party. P. (2010) Negotiation. J.A. 6. (1983) ‘A Core Model of Negotiations’. and Calero.H. By understanding each constitute of the team.A. (eds).. R. 9. 6th edn. 7|Page . the each team are more likely to compromise their own goal and achieve an agreement.H. T. K. we can co ordinate the team negotiation better. Lewicki et al.7 in Lewicki et al. and Bazerman. (2010) ‘Negotiating Rationally: The Power and Impact of the Negotiator’s Frame’. ch2.. Reading 2. Reading 1. 6th edn. Neale. Economic and Labour Relations Review. 5. G. Reading 6. (eds).K. and Sebenius. Lax. Olander. ch5. (2010) Negotiation. 7.1 in Lewicki et al. And Bazerman. 2.9 in Lewicki et al. And Khon. (2010) Negotiation. Negotiation: Reading: 435-442. (2010) ‘Effecitve Negotiating Techniques: From Selecting Strategies to Side-Stepping Impasses and Assumptions’. Individual differences through personalities and abilities can influence the function of each team’s dynamic which ultimately influence the outcome of the negotiation. Sheldon. 6th edn. H. 8. Reading 1. M.5 in Lewicki et al. Hiam.