Fontaine and Gaudin did not really object successfully or forcefully to the hardball tactics employed by Hauptmann and Zinnser. However, they were correct in noting the extreme importance of this contract for Pacific Oil, and some contract with Reliant, even a bad one, is likely better than no contract at all. Even so, Fontaine and Gaudin were not nearly forceful enough, and should have noted that they were making significant concessions already and were unwilling to go further. Hauptmann and Zinnser were using hardball tactics, and their style can thus be described as competitive.
The primary hardball tactic employed here was by Hauptmann and Zinnser: the “nibble” (Hames, 2011). In this hardball tactic, the negotiator gradually chips away …show more content…
Hauptmann and Zinnser contact Fontaine and Gaudin, again saying that there are some small issues with the contract. In particular, Hauptmann and Zinnser were worried that other purchasers would be buying from Pacific Oil at a lower price than Reliant was paying, getting exactly the same product at a lower price and hurting Reliant’s ability to compete in the market. Hauptmann and Zinnser wanted two clauses targeted at this concern: first, a “favored nations” clause, which said that if Pacific Oil offered another organization a lower price on its VCM, Reliant would receive that lower price as well; second, a “meet competition” clause, which said that if a competitor of Pacific Oil offered Reliant a lower price, Pacific Oil would meet that lower price. At this point, Frank Kelsey became involved in the whole affair. He began to feel that Reliant was gradually accumulating major advantages over the course of the negotiation, and that Fontaine and Gaudin did not appreciate how significant those advantages and concessions were, because they were gradual and because Fontaine and Gaudin were so invested in making some sort of contract extension. However, other executives within Pacific Oil were of the opinion that Fontaine had a good head for these negotiations and if he believed that the clauses Reliant wanted were a good idea, they were probably
The primary hardball tactic employed here was by Hauptmann and Zinnser: the “nibble” (Hames, 2011). In this hardball tactic, the negotiator gradually chips away …show more content…
Hauptmann and Zinnser contact Fontaine and Gaudin, again saying that there are some small issues with the contract. In particular, Hauptmann and Zinnser were worried that other purchasers would be buying from Pacific Oil at a lower price than Reliant was paying, getting exactly the same product at a lower price and hurting Reliant’s ability to compete in the market. Hauptmann and Zinnser wanted two clauses targeted at this concern: first, a “favored nations” clause, which said that if Pacific Oil offered another organization a lower price on its VCM, Reliant would receive that lower price as well; second, a “meet competition” clause, which said that if a competitor of Pacific Oil offered Reliant a lower price, Pacific Oil would meet that lower price. At this point, Frank Kelsey became involved in the whole affair. He began to feel that Reliant was gradually accumulating major advantages over the course of the negotiation, and that Fontaine and Gaudin did not appreciate how significant those advantages and concessions were, because they were gradual and because Fontaine and Gaudin were so invested in making some sort of contract extension. However, other executives within Pacific Oil were of the opinion that Fontaine had a good head for these negotiations and if he believed that the clauses Reliant wanted were a good idea, they were probably