Luke Hillegass MGMT 450 Blog

 If I were to go back, I think I would alter how I arranged my resources.  Going into the negotation, I wanted to make a deal with RR.  After seeing others negotaite it, I realized the Four Com would be preffered and a better alternative.  With that said, I would have gave less points towards making an agreement with RR and overall less points on the table, knowing that the four com offer is a better fit.  The original offer would have yielded 5 points, with the only thing covered being the relocation, and a partial relocation coverage at that.   The revised offer would have yieleded 17 points, which is still much lower than ideal.  The four com offer would have yielded 43 points, which is signifigantly higher than the other options.   Doing this negotiation over again, I would have needed a much better offer from RR to even consider, knowing how ideal the four com offer is.  

 Scoring system for Joe Tech Title - 25 point maximum Product Manager - 25 points Associate Product Manager with guaranteed end year bonus - 15 points Associate product manager with 6-12 month review process - 10 points Associate Product Manager - 0 points Salary - 10 points maximum 98-101k - 10 points 94k-97k - 7 points 90k-93k - 5 points 88k - 0 points Assignment - 20 points maximum Immediate switch to business development - 20 points Start in Product management with a 6-12 month transition plan - 15 points Verbal commitment to transition- 5 points no movement - 0 points Signing bonus - 10 points max 18k+ - 10 points 15-17k - 8 points 11-14k - 5 points 10k (No change) - 0 points Relocation - 10 points Full relocation - 10 points Move covered - 8 points Partially covered - 5 points No change - 0 points Year-end bonus - 13 points Guaranteed 15-20% bonus - 13 points Guarnteed 10% - 8 points  Guarenteed 5% - 5 points No guarantee - 0 points Stock options - 7 points Any increase ...

 During my negotation simulation last week, my strategy was very much so collaboritive.  I wanted to work with my partner to come to a common ground, but still wanted to make sure my needs were met.  With the facts in mind, failing to come to an agreemnent could figuratively cost myself my job, and my partner his job.  Going into it, I wanted to do what I could to make that known.  Luckily, my partner was moreso looking to compromise and completely split the benefits.  I tried, at first, to still gain an edge, but make sure the other party was benefiting too.  Ultimately, we did not get too far with gaining an edge, and decided to leave even, which I believe was the best choice.   Interestingly enough, I feel if I started with a compromise type mindset at first, I could have worked towards a collaboration or even competetive strategy.  My partner could sense that though I wanted both sides to benefit, I was aggressive at first and was trying ...

 In our last class, we did two negotiation simulations.   A technique I used in both negotiations was probing/testing.  In the used car negotiation, I attempted multiple times to gain more information on the buyers goals and other information.  I asked if she "had other cars in mind" to know if there was competition and could sell for a higher price.  In the second negotiation, I used probing/testing to see if Knight had talked to any other sellers or had any other offers.  I knew that if I did not get this sale, I would have to sell the pistons for very cheap and would lose money, so wanted to verify the leverage I had.  I also utilized a quick close during the second negotiation.  As stated, I knew I needed to make a deal, but my partner was not budging.  We were stuck at 600$ a piston, and I was reluctant to go lower.  Rather than lower my price, I offered waived fees in exchange for us to agree on the price and sign the contract, to ...