Harbor Co Negotiation case

Brandon Sather Min Li MGMT 6004 091 HarborCo This negotiation is going to be difficult because of the number of parties involved and the veracity with which each is going to fight for their interests. In each case I believe each party’s BATNA will be to have no agreement or an agreement that they did not agree to – allowing them to save face to their constituents. As the Environmental Negotiator I only care about two issues; the industry mix and the ecological impact. Between the two of these issues there are only 3 combinations in which I would be amenable to an agreement. My BATNA in this negotiation is to just have the ecology remain as is. I am here to fight for the environment, and if it cannot be improved by this project then I am more than happy to see it remain untouched. My aspiration level is to have all clean industries on the island and to have the environment improved throughout the process. The environment is slightly more important than the industry mix, and two of my three agreeable options include the improvement of the environment. The bargaining zone is minimal because my willingness to budge on these aspects is limited. My strategy in this negotiation is make sure that everyone at the table understands the I believe their positions are valid, and since I do not have a stake in any of the other positions I intend to back their positions in order to acquire support for my own. Additionally, I intend to pitch hard to the government regulator that in the current era that we are in, it would be morally and publicly unacceptable to subsidize a project that actively destroys the environment, and as such they should veto any agreement that comes at the expense of the natural environment. The public relations implications will hopefully be enough to sway the regulator into agreeing with me.

I think it will be in the best interests of all of the special interest negotiators if we create an environment where we are bargaining collectively with the drilling company, this will improve all of our positions and will make sure that everyone’s interests are represented in the final agreement. As stated in The More the Merrier article, highly competitive multi-party negotiations create fear in the negotiators that they will be exploited. By collectively bargaining we may be able to ease those concerns, and create an environment where we are making the pie bigger rather than determining which slice everyone gets. The article states further that the greater the number of parties, the greater the potential for alliances so by creating one large alliance we can keep several smaller ones from interrupting the entire process. This negotiation has three very important characteristics listed in the Strength in Numbers article which lead me to believe that creating a united front is the best option; it is a very complex negotiation with a diverse set of knowledge required, it has great potential for creative, integrative solutions, and many diverse constituencies and interests are represented at the table. Unfortunately this is not an explicit negotiation team so we are unable to prepare as if we were, however the diligent preparation of each party will serve as a proxy and a team-oriented, friendly environment should be enough to compensate for the lack of group preparation. My initial plan is to achieve the maximum for every interest group at the table, and for the government to provide the most lucrative funding option to the drilling company. It is in the best interests of everyone involved to get their aspiration level, and I think the government should be willing to fund a project that is “green” and does not create a disparaging situation for anyone involved. Clearly the drilling company will be opposed to many of the aspiration levels involved, but ideally the collective front will help them to understand that it will be a long term benefit to everyone involved.