INTRODUCTION
From beginning to end, the case study on TexasAgs Oil Company clearly demonstrates the power of preparation. TexasAgs Oil did not properly prepare and as a result, they let Cousins Chemical completely dictate the outcome of the negotiation. Not only did Cousins have nearly all the leverage in this negotiation, they also fully recognized this and used it to the advantage. If TexasAgs Oil had just changed a few things and prepared more effectively, the outcome of this negotiation could have been far different.
PROBLEMS & POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Hertford and Foster knew the most important thing was for them to get a deal done with Cousins because the VCM market would soon be oversupplied in a few years due to future construction of …show more content…
My number one takeaway from this class is the party who is most prepared for a negotiation almost always comes out ahead. If I were Hertford and Foster, my preparation would have been simple – decide the terms I want, stick to them and have a BATNA in case your terms are not reached. According to Lewicki, Saunders & Barry 2011 (p. 12), “Negotiators need to understand their own BATNA and the other party’s BATNA. The value of a person’s BATNA is always relative to the possible settlements available in the current negotiation.” Hertford and Foster did not have a BATNA, nor did they understand what Cousins’ BATNA might be and it put them in a really bad spot. Basically, if Hertford and Foster had just prepared better and had a legitimate BATNA, they would have been a lot more …show more content…
Hertford and Foster’s approach was basically assuming the deal would get done with virtually no problems. They had no other options because in their minds a deal was going to get done easily. According to Tracy 2013 (p. 12), “Having options may be your best friend in getting the best deal in any negotiation.” When Hansen and Petersen pushed back, they were not prepared to deal with that and became focused maintaining their relationship with them. In order to maintain this relationship, Hertford and Foster just let Hansen and Petersen make more and more demands. Hertford and Foster should have voiced their disagreement with the demands of Cousins Chemical. Instead, they reviewed each request made by Cousins when they should have just put their foot down. It is quite apparent that Hertford and Foster are far more concerned with maintaining their relationship with Cousins than focusing on the agreed
From beginning to end, the case study on TexasAgs Oil Company clearly demonstrates the power of preparation. TexasAgs Oil did not properly prepare and as a result, they let Cousins Chemical completely dictate the outcome of the negotiation. Not only did Cousins have nearly all the leverage in this negotiation, they also fully recognized this and used it to the advantage. If TexasAgs Oil had just changed a few things and prepared more effectively, the outcome of this negotiation could have been far different.
PROBLEMS & POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Hertford and Foster knew the most important thing was for them to get a deal done with Cousins because the VCM market would soon be oversupplied in a few years due to future construction of …show more content…
My number one takeaway from this class is the party who is most prepared for a negotiation almost always comes out ahead. If I were Hertford and Foster, my preparation would have been simple – decide the terms I want, stick to them and have a BATNA in case your terms are not reached. According to Lewicki, Saunders & Barry 2011 (p. 12), “Negotiators need to understand their own BATNA and the other party’s BATNA. The value of a person’s BATNA is always relative to the possible settlements available in the current negotiation.” Hertford and Foster did not have a BATNA, nor did they understand what Cousins’ BATNA might be and it put them in a really bad spot. Basically, if Hertford and Foster had just prepared better and had a legitimate BATNA, they would have been a lot more …show more content…
Hertford and Foster’s approach was basically assuming the deal would get done with virtually no problems. They had no other options because in their minds a deal was going to get done easily. According to Tracy 2013 (p. 12), “Having options may be your best friend in getting the best deal in any negotiation.” When Hansen and Petersen pushed back, they were not prepared to deal with that and became focused maintaining their relationship with them. In order to maintain this relationship, Hertford and Foster just let Hansen and Petersen make more and more demands. Hertford and Foster should have voiced their disagreement with the demands of Cousins Chemical. Instead, they reviewed each request made by Cousins when they should have just put their foot down. It is quite apparent that Hertford and Foster are far more concerned with maintaining their relationship with Cousins than focusing on the agreed