Essay on Pacific Oil Company

Gina Blair represented a competitive-cooperative negotiation strategy which represented a middle ground, both combined in a style which was open minded but assertive. Gina had scheduled the telephone meeting between herself and Daniel Trent; therefore she had more knowledge about what was going to be discussed. As she had initiated the negotiation she had prepared well for the issues concerning her clients. She presented her negotiation in a logical structure, showing that she had prepared all the areas of concern which she intended to address. Her preparation allowed her to identify and prioritise her client’s concerns. She avoided small talk and was very direct, her approach was assertive and she projected confidence. She had a clear understanding of the issues which were of concern to her clients and had proposed

- When I saw that Turbo and United were building up forces, I put in a table a completely new negotiation, which was very

A skilled negotiator spends enough amount of time in preparation and planning. In the preparation and planning of this negotiation I gathered all the positive points to my advantage and planned how to put them in a sequence so that my opponent could

It would seem that the types of negotiators each of our characters took on also had a fair part in the way the negotiations played out. Bhand (2010) discusses the four types of negotiators. I don’t believe we see all four of the negotiation types displayed in this negotiation, but rather that Fontaine and Gaudin share the same negotiation technique while Hauptmann, and Zinnser take on very different methods to the negotiating. Let’s start with Fontaine and Gaudin. From the first visit between Gaudin and Hauptmann in December to the combined visit of Fontaine and Gaudin in March, Lewiski (n.d.) points out the factors of the established relationship between Pacific Oil and Reliant Chemical, and the thought of Fontaine and Gaudin that the negotiations will be without any real problems. This thought process, and the way it continues to drive the negotiation going forward falls into Bhand’s definition of a negotiator low on task orientation but high on relationship orientation. “They have a mindset that if the relationship with the other negotiator is ‘good’ then it will be easy to negotiate…rarely disagreeing with the other party, they want to please the other party by agreeing to most demands” (2010). This behavior is displayed over and over again with Fontaine and Gaudin in that they do not disagree with any of the Reliant Chemical demands outright, but rather they

There were three primary changes that I would make if given the opportunity to redo this negotiation. First, I would more immediately suggest that a contingent contract be used to address the quality of product vs. long-term contract debate. In hindsight, it could have been very efficient to propose an agreement that allowed for Rawmat’s longer term deal while also recognizing Myti-Pet’s desire for higher quality. By not initially considering a contingency contract, our group fell into the trap discussed in Bazerman and Gillespie (1999). We simply did not allow ourselves to consider a contingency contract, and when the idea was first proposed we initially felt uncomfortable with the concept. In hindsight, this reaction was highly unproductive.

By studying the situation, I don't believe the 2 sides concerned ever had a deal. In the situation, the sides reached a deal just

been silence and a written word. Larry Scott would’ve made a deal first on what

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the need for an effective negotiator to plan, organize, direct, and control a negotiation. This paper will describe the skills and behavior needed for effective negotiations. An understanding of various negotiating strategies or tactics and how they can be applied in varying types of negotiations will be demonstrated. Technology and information resources will be used to research issues in business

In this case it seems that were given all the conditions for establishing consideration, but if we look more closely at the details of the case we will realize that there were

The Pacific Oil Company went into negotiations with Reliant Manufacturing, and its goal was to sign a more long-term agreement prior to the contract ending in three years. Pacific anticipated that the new contract would be signed with no major obstacles or changes, and that the dominant point of negotiation

By the final round of negotiation, we could find the other party’s interest and we had framed our BATNA in alignment with interest(s) of Southern Express and mutual gains. But the management of Southern Express was stuck in the positional stand and the negotiation seemed to be going towards deadlock. At one point the management had offered the union an insignificant pay raise and expressed their inability to increase

The initial defense from warner should have come from the initial agreement, anticipating the Pfizer proposal and leaving no room to Pfizer to legal actions or hostile proposals. In my view, the standstill clause must have been reinforced by not allowing Pfizer any merge proposal even though, the third party proposals

In other words, Reliant was a major customer. Perhaps if Pacific Oil focused on increasing their smaller business relationships would prevent them from large losses in negotiating. Then, Pacific Oil's decision to not proceed with manufacturing their own PVC might not have been a very good decision. If the decision was made because it was determine not to be lucrative, maybe all avenues were not addressed, such as outsourcing. This could have given Pacific Oil the power of competition. If they would have proceeded with the manufacturing venture, they would be less dependent on Reliant as a customer. The power advantage would then shift from Reliant to Pacific Oil. Pacific Oil could also approach the various competition to get an advantage over Reliant's threat to take their business somewhere else. Pacific Oil also could have gained some advantage by encouraging Reliant to address all of their issues up front by asking more questions about their concerns (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2011). Finally, conducting all of the negotiations away from Pacific Oil's main office diminished some of their power. Having some higher leadership more engaged in the negotiating process could have diminished some of Reliant's power advantage through perception. Reliant was in a position to demand more

Hauptman and Zinnser utilized Competitive Strategy (win to lose). Unlike Pacific, Reliant had done its research and was fully aware of Pacific’s situation and the market dynamics going on at the time and, presumably well into the future. They had a plan, developed a strategy and used it to their advantage. Essentially, Reliant had been given no incentive by Pacific to extend the contract. They had done their research, and armed with the knowledge gleaned and now aware as to the reasons why Pacific was so eager to extend the contract, they took the opportunity

The lack of detailed planning in the case of Pacific Oil Company’s (POC) negotiation of a new contract with Reliant had dire consequences for Pacific Oil. Pacific Oil did not plan sufficiently when they began negotiations. They lacked a clear strategy, failed to consider the major sources of power or correctly estimate the power possessed by Reliant. In addition, POC failed to account for Reliant’s negotiating style.