Negotiation Genius Summary

a. Analysis: (“What & Why”)
In Negotiation Genius, Malhotra and Bazerman demonstrate in the chapter of investigative negotiation that there are five different strategies to utilize when information is being reserved by the opponent. These are to build trust and share information, ask questions, give away some information, negotiate multiple issues simultaneously and make multiple offers simultaneously. During this part of the negotiation I felt that the opposing party was reticent in sharing information as well as unclear regarding his client’s reputation issue. His body language demonstrated to me that he was uncomfortable discussing the issue. By asking “but do you think that you need money to demonstrate artistic abilities” (Quintin) gave …show more content…
Because both parties attempted to resolve the disputes, by focusing on both parties’ interests. I asked the opposing party “what would your client need and want in order to be happy and continue production” (Quintin). Brett and Goldberg approaches to resolving disputes demonstrate that by concentrating “on interests provides the opportunity for learning about the parties’ common concerns, priorities, and preferences” (Brett, Goldberg). To propose a resolution between Labrador Entertainment and Raven Reynolds my objective was to stay away from litigation. If we had taken the “rights” approach it would have led to a distributive agreement, whereby fundamentally “there is a winner and a loser”. Which was not the scenario that I was interested in as I was attempting to find a win-win situation in settling the dispute. An alternative approach would have focusing on power, whereby the “parties try to coerce each other into making concessions that each would not otherwise do” (Brett, Goldberg). This was not an option as this most likely would have led to a distributive agreement, which was not my …show more content…
As we did not reach a firm solution to our issues at hand. To only have focused on the interests was not an effective strategy. I could have focused on balancing interests, rights and power to find a resolution for the disputes. By balancing these strategies effectively, I would have been more effective. Because the aspect of financials could not be resolved by interest, due to the opposing views. If I had taken a power approach to solve the issues it would have damaged our relationship, therefore far from aligned our interest. It would then most probably lead to litigation which was far from my objective. But I could have taken the right’s approach by focusing more on the contracts. This could have led to a more favorable end scenario and maybe even a firm solution for both parties. Nevertheless, the danger would have been that an imbalance between the three strategies could have led to ending up in a worse