Bella Capelli A Paul Mitchell Partner Confidential Role Information for G Technical Paper negotiation assignment details attached. I have also attached an

Bella Capelli A Paul Mitchell Partner Confidential Role Information for G Technical Paper negotiation assignment details attached. I have also attached an example for the same. BUSI 455
NEGOTIATION 1 – NEGOTIATION AND RESULTS INSTRUCTIONS
All negotiation assignments will be reported within the iDecisionGames software.
During Module/Week 4, you and your pair will negotiate the issues in this simulation with the
second pair in your group. You may communicate and negotiate through any means that is
practical: phone, email, Skype, IM, etc.
Just as in real-life negotiations, you may include designating one student in each role/pair to
conduct the actual negotiation, with various levels of authority to conclude a deal without
approval from the other member of the pair. Or, you may wish to have all four students (both
students in both roles) negotiate together at all times. These are tactical decisions that are part of
the negotiation process, and should be documented in iDecisionGames in the Tactics sections as
you proceed.
Complete the Tactics, Results, and Insights sections of the Negotiation 1 simulation in
iDecisionGames, submitting at least 100 words in each section. Within Results and Insights,
provide at least 100 words in response to each of the following prompts:
• Defend the solution you obtained.
• Summary of what you learned.
• Relevant readings and class lectures.
• Surprises.
• If you had to do it over again, what would you do differently?
• Have you improved?
• How might you sustain progress made?
Your analysis must include a biblical perspective on the negotiation, tactics, results, etc.
Although you will be working in pairs, negotiating with another pair, each student must submit
his/her own work in iDecisionGames. In order to ensure word count, spelling, English usage,
etc., it is suggested that you write your analysis in Word, then copy/paste into the software.
Submit this assignment by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of Module/Week 4.
Tactics
Identify key tactics that you intend to use and those your counterpart may employ. Focus on KEY
tactics, more is not better.
My Tactics
DEADLINES – Our company, AccelMedia, seems to have greater urgency due to the orders need to be
filled. A delay in processors prevents our product from being on the market and damaging consumer
trust and business momentum.
OPENING OFFER – Since we already had an initial price negotiated with MaxProc, I would open with an
offer, suggesting that I am knowledgeable in the value of the processors. I would open with an offer that
BUSI 455
is significantly low, utilizing the strategy of anchoring to find a mid-point price settlement.
LEVERAGE – My leverage lies in the number of units that I am willing to purchase. For Gtechnica, the
more units I purchase, the more they profit
AGENDA – The agenda will include the following action items:
The price per processor unit
The total number of processors ordered
SILENCE – If they refuse to budge on a price point that is significantly high ($30+), I would consider
waiting to reply as a demonstration that we are willing to walk away from the deal if it seems
unprofitable for us.
INFORMATION SHARING – I plan to disclose relatively little in the beginning, opening up more as the
opportunity arises. Since we only need 10,000 processor units, I would open with that and be willing to
up my purchase amount (up to 18,000 units) based on whether they are willing to drop the price.
MEDIATION – There will be no mediator used in the negotiations. The negotiation will likely include all
company representatives from our team (AccelMedia) and a delegation of representatives from theirs
(GTechnica).
Their tactics
DEADLINES – GTechnica does not seem to have any deadlines pressing that we are aware of. However,
there may be production quotas that they need our business to meet. Unfortunately, we cannot know if
this holds any truth until negotiations begin.
OPENING OFFER – To maximize their profitability, their opening offer may be relatively high. That is why
we will be utilizing an anchoring strategy to find a mutually beneficial price in the middle.
LEVERAGE – GTechnica can leverage our need for the processors against us.
AGENDA – The agenda will include the following action items:
The price per processor unit
The total number of processors ordered
SILENCE – Since they seem to hold more leverage based on the prompt, they are more likely to utilize
silence in their strategy. But with their willingness to provide the processors based on initial reach out,
they are unlikely to walk away.
INFORMATION SHARING – The reps for GTechnica may not share any information other than the
production cost of the units as a means of establishing a walk away point.
MEDIATION – There will be no mediator used in the negotiations. The negotiation will likely include all
company representatives from our team (AccelMedia) and a delegation of representatives from theirs
(GTechnica).
Insights
Defend the solution you obtained:
The negotiated deal was a fair compromise between both of our organization’s needs. It fell slightly
closer to benefit us, which I feel was in part to GTechnica’s representatives revealing too much
information early on.
Summary of what you learned:
I learned that planning is important, but no process can be completely mapped. It is beneficial to
consider what responses you may make based on their approach, but you are most benefited from
simply evaluating your first move in the negotiation and what negotiation theory you will adhere to or
follow.
BUSI 455
Relevant readings and class lectures:
Lewicki’s presentation of the collaborative strategy was eye opening and helped in developing my
approach. Though I adhere to a Christian worldview that encourages the golden rule of Loving your
neighbor as yourself, I saw negotiation as a winner takes all competition. Understanding that most
situations can lead to a win-win for all parties means that a collaborative approach can be the best in a
majority of circumstances (Lewecki, 2018).
Surprises:
I was surprised at how aware GTechnica’s representatives were aware of our needs before we even
mentioned them. Walking into the negotiation, we knew we needed at least 10,000 units, but a max of
18,000. They seem to have obtained information that we needed 15,000 to 20,000 units. This false
assumption did give us a slight upper hand when we said we only needed 10,000 units, making them
more willing to bargain to increase our purchase.
If you had to do this over again, what would you do differently:
I would probably find another means of communication with my team rather than email. Facetime (even
through a screen) could have assisted us in better preparing before entering the negotiation and given
clarity on what our group expectations were.
Consider your negotiation performance prior to this event. Have you improved? How? How might you
sustain progress made?
Though I had experience negotiating informally, most of my professional experience in negotiation was
limited to job offers. I have learned that there is often a win-win scenario that can be created for all
parties. This progress in negotiating can be sustained by constantly reminding myself to consider the
other parties needs and searching to find a mutually beneficial deal.
Progress Reflection:
My ability to negotiate has improved. Clarity amongst team members will be a tactic I invest more in
next time.
BUSI 455
NEGOTIATION 1 – NEGOTIATION AND RESULTS INSTRUCTIONS
All negotiation assignments will be reported within the iDecisionGames software.
During Module/Week 4, you and your pair will negotiate the issues in this simulation with the
second pair in your group. You may communicate and negotiate through any means that is
practical: phone, email, Skype, IM, etc.
Just as in real-life negotiations, you may include designating one student in each role/pair to
conduct the actual negotiation, with various levels of authority to conclude a deal without
approval from the other member of the pair. Or, you may wish to have all four students (both
students in both roles) negotiate together at all times. These are tactical decisions that are part of
the negotiation process, and should be documented in iDecisionGames in the Tactics sections as
you proceed.
Complete the Tactics, Results, and Insights (insights not available yet) sections of the
Negotiation 1 simulation in iDecisionGames, submitting at least 100 words in each section.
Within Results and Insights, provide at least 100 words in response to each of the following
prompts:
• Defend the solution you obtained.
• Summary of what you learned.
• Relevant readings and class lectures.
• Surprises.
• If you had to do it over again, what would you do differently?
• Have you improved?
• How might you sustain progress made?
Your analysis must include a biblical perspective on the negotiation, tactics, results, etc.
Although you will be working in pairs, negotiating with another pair, each student must submit
his/her own work in iDecisionGames. In order to ensure word count, spelling, English usage,
etc., it is suggested that you write your analysis in Word, then copy/paste into the software.
For this exercise my group which is one other person- I am the seller along with my partner
•
•
•
•
Complete the Tactics, Review Entire Plan, Results, and Insights sections of the Negotiation Simulation in
iDecision, submitting at least 100 words in each text box.
Your analysis must include a Biblical perspective on the negotiation, tactics, results, etc.
Each student must submit his/her own work in iDecision. In order to ensure word count, spelling, English
usage, etc., you may write your analysis in Word, then copy/paste into the software.
Submit this assignment in iDecision by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday, July 27 East.
Submit this assignment by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of Module/Week 4.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment