Individual Written Assignment Material 1 Case Titled Bargain

Individual Written Assignment Material1 Case Titled Bargaining Pr

Individual written Assignment ï‚· Material: 1. Case titled “BARGAINING PRICE WITH THE CHINESE†(Rob March) page 2 ï‚· Answer ALL the following questions: “He realized the value of thinking like one’s opponent – seeing things as they do.†Explain what this means and give some examples to illustrate this view. “The Chinese insisted that custom required the visitor—Glazer—to make the first presentation. This he did, even though he was accustomed to allowing his opponents to speak first†What are the advantages and drawbacks of making the first offer? “Glazer could hardly believe that he had lowered his price twenty per-cent that weekâ€: What does this tell you about Glazer’s ZOPA? What can we ‘assume’ about the way Glazer did his due diligence? Evaluate the approach. Name three tactics the Chinese used in the second meeting. Evaluate briefly how Glazer dealt with them. “Glazer remembered the tight deadlines he had faced on previous trips to China; now positions had been reversed, with the Chinese facing the pressures and deadlines.â€: What does this tell you about Glazer’s preparation strategy for the negotiation? â€For the first time, the Chinese made a counter offer. Auger-Aiso accepted, and agreement was reached†Why do you thing Auger Aiso agreed at this point? “He believed that Auger-Aiso had been awarded the contract because it had been the preferred supplier right from the start†How does this belief relate to understanding the difference between distributive and integrative bargaining?

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Negotiation is a complex process that requires strategic thinking, understanding of cultural nuances, and tactical adaptability. The case “Bargaining Price with the Chinese” provides valuable insights into effective negotiation practices, especially when dealing with different cultural backgrounds and bargaining styles. This paper explores key concepts such as empathic thinking, first-mover advantage, Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA), due diligence, tactical maneuvers, preparation strategies, and the distinction between distributive and integrative bargaining, illustrating their application through the specific case of Glazer’s negotiations with Chinese counterparts.

The Significance of Thinking Like One’s Opponent

He realized the value of thinking like his opponent—seeing things from the other's perspective—is fundamental in achieving successful negotiations. This approach allows negotiators to anticipate the other party’s motives, concerns, and priorities, thereby enabling the crafting of mutually beneficial solutions. For example, Glazer’s understanding of the Chinese emphasis on face-saving and hierarchy helped him tailor his offer and communication style to align with Chinese cultural norms, fostering mutual respect and trust (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011). Empathic thinking also facilitates identifying underlying interests, which can lead to creative agreements that satisfy both sides.

The Advantages and Drawbacks of Making the First Offer

In the case, the Chinese insisted that Glazer make the first presentation, contrary to his usual practice of letting the opponent speak first. Making the first offer can have tactical advantages, such as anchoring the negotiation, setting the terms, and potentially shaping perceptions of value (Shell, 2006). It can also demonstrate confidence and control. However, drawbacks include the risk of revealing too much information, setting an unfavorable anchor if the offer is too high or too low, and losing flexibility later in the negotiation (Lax & Sebenius, 1986). In Glazer’s case, complying with Chinese customs honored their negotiation style but may have limited his initial leverage.

Understanding Glazer’s Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA)

Glazer was surprised to find himself lowering the price by twenty percent, which indicates that his initial expectations may have been outside the actual ZOPA—the range where both parties’ interests overlap (Fisher et al., 2011). This suggests Glazer’s initial valuation of the deal was possibly optimistic, and through dialogue, he realized the realistic parameters of the negotiation. His flexibility and willingness to adjust his position reveal an adaptive approach to discovering the true ZOPA, critical for reaching an agreement.

Assumptions and Evaluation of Glazer’s Due Diligence

The case implies that Glazer engaged in significant pre-negotiation research to inform his strategy, perhaps including market analysis, cultural understanding, and competitor insights. This due diligence likely involved gathering information about the Chinese partners’ needs, constraints, and negotiation styles. Evaluating this approach, it appears comprehensive, as it equipped Glazer with relevant knowledge to navigate cultural norms and develop tactical plans. Effective due diligence enhances credibility and provides leverage during negotiations (Thompson, 2015).

Chinese Tactics and Glazer’s Responses

In the second meeting, the Chinese employed at least three tactical maneuvers: establishing procedural norms (insisting that Glazer present first), using silence and strategic pauses to create pressure, and proposing counter-offers to test Glazer’s flexibility. Glazer responded by maintaining composure, carefully listening to their arguments, and adjusting his offers incrementally. These tactics aimed to influence the negotiation’s rhythm and create psychological pressure, but Glazer’s calm, methodical responses helped prevent escalation and kept the negotiation constructive.

Preparation Strategy and the Reversal of Pressures

Glazer’s observation of the shifting pressures—Chinese facing deadlines and Glazer’s prior pressures—reflects the importance of adaptive preparation. He likely anticipated that the Chinese would feel the pressure of deadlines and accordingly prepared contingency plans and alternative strategies. This understanding allowed him to leverage timing and patience, essential components of effective negotiation preparation (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2016). Recognizing the dynamic nature of cross-cultural negotiations, Glazer’s strategy encompassed flexibility and cultural sensitivity.

The Chinese Counter-Offer and the Decision to Agree

The Chinese made a counter-offer, which Auger-Aiso accepted, leading to an agreement. Their acceptance at this stage suggests that they perceived the deal as advantageous, possibly because of strategic concessions or the value of finalizing the agreement before deadlines. This indicates that the Chinese negotiation stance was pragmatic, willing to make squarely calculated concessions when their underlying interests were met (Lewicki et al., 2016). Auger-Aiso’s acceptance underscores the importance of recognizing when an offer aligns with one’s interests and the value of closing the deal.

Distributive vs. Integrative Bargaining

The belief that Auger-Aiso was awarded the contract because it was the preferred supplier from the outset reflects a distributive bargaining view—seeing the negotiation as a zero-sum contest focused on claiming value. However, effective negotiations often involve integrative bargaining, which seeks to expand the value or create mutually beneficial outcomes (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). Understanding this difference clarifies why strategic relationship-building and understanding underlying interests are crucial; ultimately, the best outcome stems from balancing both approaches to achieve cooperative and value-adding agreements.

Conclusion

The case exemplifies the multifaceted nature of negotiation, emphasizing cultural awareness, tactical flexibility, and strategic preparation. By thinking like the opponent, understanding the significance of first-mover advantages, identifying the ZOPA, and employing tactical maneuvers, negotiators can improve outcomes. Recognizing the distinction between distributive and integrative bargaining further enhances strategic effectiveness, especially in cross-cultural contexts. These principles are essential for negotiators aiming to reach sustainable and mutually satisfying agreements in complex international deals.

References

• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
• Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The Manager as Negotiator. Free Press.
• Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2016). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. McGraw-Hill.
• Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin.
• Thompson, L. L. (2015). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Pearson.
• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations. Bantam Books.
• Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation. Sage.
• Raiffa, H. (2002). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press.
• Salacuse, J. W. (1998). The Five Basic Negotiation Styles. Negotiation Journal, 14(3), 19-29.